# Production of the Canon EOS 5DS and Canon EOS 5DS R has ended



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 9, 2020)

> I have been told a couple of times now and reminded today that production of the Canon EOS 5DS and Canon EOS 5DS R has ended. There will obviously be stock available for quite some time, but the series has definitely reached its end. There will be no DSLR replacement for either camera.
> Let the rumors of a high-megapixel Canon EOS R commence.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## gunder (Mar 9, 2020)

It's about time. Surprised they didn't end production 2 years ago!


----------



## Danglin52 (Mar 9, 2020)

Even though they hit a market need, these were niche cameras and I doubt the volume was very high compared some of the other Canon lines. Even though the R5 may not match the 5ds/r in pixels, the quality of the images from the sensor will be much better and the small difference in pixels will not matter. That is assuming the R5 is 45mp.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 9, 2020)

Let the legends begin. I won't be selling mine in a hurry.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 9, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> Even though they hit a market need, these were niche cameras and I doubt the volume was very high compared some of the other Canon lines. Even though the R5 may not match the 5ds/r in pixels, the quality of the images from the sensor will be much better and the small difference in pixels will not matter. That is assuming the R5 is 45mp.


What's the evidence that the R5 images will be much better?


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 9, 2020)

Good bye!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 9, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Good bye!


Good buy!


----------



## Rixy (Mar 9, 2020)

AlanF said:


> What's the evidence that the R5 images will be much better?


New sensor, supposed to improve over time


----------



## trounds (Mar 9, 2020)

Its always sad to see a camera disappear.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 9, 2020)

I don’t think it’s because it didn’t sell. Rather, it used the 5D III body so I’m sure It was costing Canon to keep the production going once the 5D IV hit the market. The next high mp model will likely use either the R5 or 5D V body. Most likely the R5.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 9, 2020)

A few things bothered me with my former 5Ds, and made me switch to the 5DIV.

First, I missed having in camera GPS, like the 6D I had before the 5Ds. To some degree I also missed having wifi. 

Second, I did not appreciate the high resolution. It made many (most of) my lenses look poorer than they did before, because what’s the point of high resolution if it looks worse when zooming in to details? (Yes, you do get more detail, but the 100% quality gets poorer). Further, I found it annoying to work with the larger files. It slowed down my computer too much for me to have a decent flow when editing, for not to speak of when I scrolled through images for selecting the keepers. 

I did also always shoot at faster shutter speeds than before, making it relatively bad for low light use. 

Last, not having dual pixel AF in live view makes it much less versatile than the 5DIV. 

At this point in time, I think 30 megapixels is a sweet spot for a FF sensor. Hopefully RF glass and IBIS will make me embrace the R5...


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2020)

I do not miss wifi at all and I got GP-E2 for GPS and it works fine.

Right now I am at a dilemma. Shall I sell at least one of my 2 5DsRs (the 2nd is just tested with less than 100 clicks) or do I get … a 3rd one ? 

OK joking, not getting another unless I sell my oldest one so as to renew the guarantee! 

Since I wish to sell my 7DII (assuming I will be able to sell it) so for birding 5DsR remains a must. FYI 5DsR's IQ is top with the big white tele lenses, even with the 100-400II.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 10, 2020)

5DSRs are going to be geek bargains on eBay for the next decade. I got a beat-up one last year for $600. I hope to find more, as I'd use them as remotes. While I shot with it 1/4 the time at most, I loved that camera. Sold it off for about the same amount. Regret letting it go. I think that camera set expectations that Canon hasn't managed to meet again, although itmight with the upcoming R5.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> What's the evidence that the R5 images will be much better?



I think the EOS R is evidence that an R5 can be at least as good as a 5DS.

When I got the EOS R and shot it in the redwoods alongside my 5DS, it was apparent the images were near equals aside from the megapixel difference. Both very good. I plan on keeping the 5DS though, even if I do get an R5


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Mar 10, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> A few things bothered me with my former 5Ds, and made me switch to the 5DIV.
> 
> First, I missed having in camera GPS, like the 6D I had before the 5Ds. To some degree I also missed having wifi.
> 
> Second, I did not appreciate the high resolution. It made many (most of) my lenses look poorer than they did before, because what’s the point of high resolution if it looks worse when zooming in to details? (Yes, you do get more detail, but the 100% quality gets poorer). Further, I found it annoying to work with the larger files. It slowed down my computer too much for me to have a decent flow when editing, for not to speak of when I scrolled through images for selecting the keepers. ... SNIP



Much of the 5DS boils down to what you did not accomplish.

I simply set the 5DS to medium, easily vaporizing the matter you noted about lenses looking poorer. Likewise, images downsized handle that too.

Small or medium files also don't slow down the computer, sweeping under the rug that part which you interjected. 

If you like the GPS, that's altogether different. At my end, we explore for new champion trees and don't want location data embedded in files. But I can understand why others would enjoy the GPS option.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 10, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> I think the EOS R is evidence that an R5 can be at least as good as a 5DS.
> 
> When I got the EOS R and shot it in the redwoods alongside my 5DS, it was apparent the images were near equals aside from the megapixel difference. Both very good. I plan on keeping the 5DS though, even if I do get an R5


I have had since they both came out a 5DIV, which has the same sensor as the EOS R, and the earlier 5DSR. The 5DSR gives me more detailed and better images. Those observations do not tell me, however, how the R5 will perform. We don’t know, for example, whether it will have an AA-filter. Also, recent latest sensors from other manufacturers have not been significantly better than the previous generation. There have, for example, been reports that some Sony users prefer the A7RIII over the RIV and the Nikon 7100 to 7200 to 7500 is no progress. So, I don’t know whether the R5 will be significantly better than a 5DSR but I would expect better DR at low iso and better shadow recovery. The 5DIV is good in that respect.


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 10, 2020)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Much of the 5DS boils down to what you did not accomplish.
> 
> I simply set the 5DS to medium, easily vaporizing the matter you noted about lenses looking poorer. Likewise, images downsized handle that too.
> 
> ...



I did not use the medium file size on the 5Ds because I saw examples that illustrated that it gave the images a green tint, and I believe also a small degradation of IQ. As far as I remember, the files was a bit slow to work with as well. 

I did not experiment much with it, so I can’t say how real the issues were or if the issues was fixed.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 10, 2020)

It all comes down to how many shells for the body and other critical components they had left. WHen you get to a point that you've run out of a critical part and it's not cost-effective to produce more (and remember the shell is essentially the old 5D Mark III body with minor changes) then you stop production. 

But these cameras aren't on a massive production line, much of it is hand assembled so even though it may still have been in production, it may be they were only building a handful a week for the last year or so.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 10, 2020)

tron said:


> I do not miss wifi at all and I got GP-E2 for GPS and it works fine.
> 
> Right now I am at a dilemma. Shall I sell at least one of my 2 5DsRs (the 2nd is just tested with less than 100 clicks) or do I get … a 3rd one ?
> 
> ...


I heard negative reviews of GP-E2 with regards to signal acquisition which meant I still use Garmin GPS unit separately for generating GPS logs.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> I heard negative reviews of GP-E2 with regards to signal acquisition which meant I still use Garmin GPS unit separately for generating GPS logs.


The very few times I used it (since last October), it worked fine. It even logged fine while being in my bag as a standalone unit!


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 10, 2020)

tron said:


> The very few times I used it (since last October), it worked fine. It even logged fine while being in my bag as a standalone unit!


That is good to hear, but I tend to use GPS unit in forests of western ghats where there have been times when even garmin units struggled to get signal.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 10, 2020)

The 5DS has been my favourite portrait camera ever since I bought it and remains so. I could be tempted by the EOS-R5 depending how good the real world results are and then maybe the 5DS will be a back-up camera.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2020)

I believe EOS R5 will have a very good sensor. The issue I see with the R5 however is the number of buttons which are less than EOS 5DIV and (now I have customized EOS R suitably) even less than EOS R (since I have programmed the 4 direction buttons and minimized the Mfn functionality to ISO and fps!). Another issue is the necessity to use EF to RF adaptors. For me this is super annoying. It will be tolerable for birding only if they make an excellent 1.4EF-RF teleconverter/adaptor. Also hoping that they will not have an AA filter which I honestly doubt since R5 will be Canon's general purpose body.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 10, 2020)

Two brilliant, high IQ cameras which are an absolute steal right now both on the used and gray markets. These cameras can run with low/mid tier MF backs in IQ while running circles around them in AF, speed, and responsiveness. They got pigeon holed as 'niche' cameras from day one which is unfortunate because they perform brilliantly in all scenarios including sports, action, wildlife, and yes, even low light. Aside from video...and these cameras were never meant to be cinema cameras...the only real complaints are 5 fps and the RAW buffer depth. Out of those two, I've personally only had an issue with the RAW buffer depth. 5 fps has been sufficient for me shooting surfing, volleyball, birding, airshows, etc.

The R5 will no doubt improve on base ISO DR, but will likely only improve slightly on high ISO. And it could be worse in terms of sharpness/detail depending on the AA filter. Here's hoping for a very weak or no AA filter on the R5. Either way, IMHO we're not going to see a substantial gain in IQ until we see Canon's next high resolution body. Anyone who can't afford the upcoming R5 but wants to compete when it comes to large, stunningly detailed prints simply has to pickup a used/gray 5Ds/sR.

I'm sad that there won't be a mark II version. I've said before that if Canon were to make a 5Ds mk II and a high resolution R with the same sensor/features, I would buy one of each. I still prefer OVF overall with a strong preference in certain situations. But I don't expect this given the state of the ILC market right now. No matter. My 5Ds isn't going any where. At current pricing it may even end up with a twin.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2020)

dtaylor said:


> Two brilliant, high IQ cameras which are an absolute steal right now both on the used and gray markets. These cameras can run with low/mid tier MF backs in IQ while running circles around them in AF, speed, and responsiveness. They got pigeon holed as 'niche' cameras from day one which is unfortunate because they perform brilliantly in all scenarios including sports, action, wildlife, and yes, even low light. Aside from video...and these cameras were never meant to be cinema cameras...the only real complaints are 5 fps and the RAW buffer depth. Out of those two, I've personally only had an issue with the RAW buffer depth. 5 fps has been sufficient for me shooting surfing, volleyball, birding, airshows, etc.
> 
> The R5 will no doubt improve on base ISO DR, but will likely only improve slightly on high ISO. And it could be worse in terms of sharpness/detail depending on the AA filter. Here's hoping for a very weak or no AA filter on the R5. Either way, IMHO we're not going to see a substantial gain in IQ until we see Canon's next high resolution body. Anyone who can't afford the upcoming R5 but wants to compete when it comes to large, stunningly detailed prints simply has to pickup a used/gray 5Ds/sR.
> 
> I'm sad that there won't be a mark II version. I've said before that if Canon were to make a 5Ds mk II and a high resolution R with the same sensor/features, I would buy one of each. I still prefer OVF overall with a strong preference in certain situations. But I don't expect this given the state of the ILC market right now. No matter. My 5Ds isn't going any where. At current pricing it may even end up with a twin.


Having gone the same way (2nd 5DsR) I can assure you that a second one will cure your 5Ds camera loneliness 

By the way both my 5DsR cameras were bought brand new grey import. I didn't regret it. But that's me of course. YMMV.

EDIT: You are correct about buffer depth. I use the latest type Compact Flash (Sandisk Extreme Pro 150MB/sec write) and silent 3fps shooting to mitigate this issue as much as possible.


----------



## Danglin52 (Mar 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> What's the evidence that the R5 images will be much better?


M6 Mark II sensor and years of development since 5ds/r. I am also guessing fab upgrades.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 10, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> M6 Mark II sensor and years of development since 5ds/r. I am also guessing fab upgrades.


I prefer the files from my 5DSR over those from my 90D, which has the same sensor as the M6 II. Have you compared them?


----------



## Danglin52 (Mar 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I prefer the files from my 5DSR over those from my 90D, which has the same sensor as the M6 II. Have you compared them?



Only compared to 5dIV. Remember, you are comparing a 32mp APS-C w/AA to a 50mp FF without AA. I think the more appropriate measure is improvement over the previous generation of APS-C sensors. It is more an indication of the improvement we should see in FF sensors.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 10, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> Only compared to 5dIV. Remember, you are comparing a 32mp APS-C w/AA to a 50mp FF without AA. I think the more appropriate measure is improvement over the previous generation of APS-C sensors. It is more an indication of the improvement we should see in FF sensors.



The R5 is going to offer a significant improvement in base ISO DR because the 5Ds/sR are among the last Canon sensors to use the old architecture. But improvements to high ISO are unlikely to be large. Comparing the 90D to 80D (merely as an example) there's an improvement, but on the order of maybe 1/2 ev? Detail/sharpness are unlikely to improve upon the 5Ds/sR and may in fact be slightly worse depending on the R5's AA filter and whether or not it's 40mp or 45mp.

For stills I think the 5Ds/sR will remain quite competitive for years to come. We are well into diminishing returns when it comes to certain aspects of sensor IQ, so I don't expect a major leap to make any of today's cameras obsolete. Sensor improvements came much more slowly during the 2010's than they did in the 2000's.

Never the less the R5 will be significant for what the sensor tech provides in terms of video and DPAF, and for raising the bar for the 5D4 market segment. The R5 is not Canon's "high resolution" 5Ds/sR replacement yet it's going to come in at 40mp or more. It's going to be one heck of a camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> What's the evidence that the R5 images will be much better?


Of course it depends on your definition of 'better' but pretty much every Canon sensor architecture since the 5DS/r apart from the RP has been considered by most users to be 'better'. Certainly DR/shadow recovery/noise suppression/blotchyness is markedly better in the newer sensor architecture and I see no reason why Canon would top backwards on a mirrorless 5 series. 

Having said that if your definition of image quality isn't heavily weighted to that DR/shadow recovery/noise suppression/blotchyness performance then I see o reason why an R5 would be considered 'better' than a 5DS/r.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Of course it depends on your definition of 'better' but pretty much every Canon sensor architecture since the 5DS/r apart from the RP has been considered by most users to be 'better'. Certainly DR/shadow recovery/noise suppression/blotchyness is markedly better in the newer sensor architecture and I see no reason why Canon would top backwards on a mirrorless 5 series.
> 
> Having said that if your definition of image quality isn't heavily weighted to that DR/shadow recovery/noise suppression/blotchyness performance then I see o reason why an R5 would be considered 'better' than a 5DS/r.


That's correct. I mentioned earlier that we should expect an improvement in DR and shadow recovery at low iso. I tend to work at high iso where the 5DS/R are competitive with the best.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> That's correct. I mentioned earlier that we should expect an improvement in DR and shadow recovery at low iso. I tend to work at high iso where the 5DS/R are competitive with the best.


Yes but I think you would have to agree your particular use/definition of 'better' is rather specific and the majority of people would see the newer sensors as 'better' in many general shooting scenarios, certainly I paid $10,000 to upgrade to the newer generation of sensors because I do value the real tangible improvements in image quality at low iso.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes but I think you would have to agree your particular use/definition of 'better' is rather specific and the majority of people would see the newer sensors as 'better' in many general shooting scenarios, certainly I paid $10,000 to upgrade to the newer generation of sensors because I do value the real tangible improvements in image quality at low iso.


All talk about the quality of the R5 sensor at this stage of our knowledge here is pure speculation. If it has a strong AA-filter it might even have poorer resolution than that of the 5DSR. Let’s wait and see what it’s like. The future will come soon enough.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 10, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> Only compared to 5dIV. Remember, you are comparing a 32mp APS-C w/AA to a 50mp FF without AA. I think the more appropriate measure is improvement over the previous generation of APS-C sensors. It is more an indication of the improvement we should see in FF sensors.


I am comparing similar sized crops from the 90D and 5DSR, not the full coverage from each. Both give better detail than the 5DIV.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 10, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Let the legends begin. I won't be selling mine in a hurry.



I'm still hoping to trade mine in for (or at least towards) a 90D!


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 11, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes but I think you would have to agree your particular use/definition of 'better' is rather specific and the majority of people would see the newer sensors as 'better' in many general shooting scenarios,



I would say DR improvements are rather specific, as opposed to resolution/sharpness/high ISO improvements. Unless you push shadows hard you don't see DR improvements. Not very many scenes call for such a push. But resolution/sharpness are always present, and high ISO is always present when shooting in low light which is common.

To each his own, but for general shooting scenarios I doubt you'll see a difference between an R5 and a 5Ds/sR unless it's a sharpness advantage to the latter. (Again hoping the AA filter is weak on the R5.)


----------



## tron (Mar 11, 2020)

scyrene said:


> I'm still hoping to trade mine in for (or at least towards) a 90D!


So you are thinking of getting 90D by giving your 5DsR and some money difference?
This is a downgrade. It isn't as if you are trading in your 80D or 70D....


----------



## scyrene (Mar 11, 2020)

tron said:


> So you are thinking of getting 90D by giving your 5DsR and some money difference?
> This is a downgrade. It isn't as if you are trading in your 80D or 70D....



It's not a downgrade from my perspective. I stopped using the 5Ds because the file size is a bit much for my aged computer. The 90D gets me more pixels on target (for birds) with smaller file sizes and a higher fps. I'll still have a 5D3 for other stuff.


----------



## tron (Mar 11, 2020)

scyrene said:


> It's not a downgrade from my perspective. I stopped using the 5Ds because the file size is a bit much for my aged computer. The 90D gets me more pixels on target (for birds) with smaller file sizes and a higher fps. I'll still have a 5D3 for other stuff.


I am satisfied with my 5DsR for birding but I realize that you have your reasons.Still, I think of it as a downgrade. Of course it is strictly my personal opinion and YMMV.

EDIT: I see you have an EOS 50D. Maybe that could be upgraded to 90D but I understand that maybe this will not get you much so it is much better to have it than get peanuts for it.


----------



## tron (Mar 11, 2020)

Damn you Canon! Couldn't you make a 5DsR MkII and let people decide at least? Ok I realize marketing reasons (and possibly stupid concept reasons like mirrorless cameras are "in"). And of course they know best.
Sttill, I believe there is room for all. And I am no mirrorless hater. I have an EOS R and 4 RF lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 11, 2020)

tron said:


> I am satisfied with my 5DsR for birding but I realize that you have your reasons.Still, I think of it as a downgrade. Of course it is strictly my personal opinion and YMMV.


My personal opinion is that if you are using just the OVF, the 5DSR has better AF (central points at f5.6 and faster but the centre plus helpers is still good at f8), the advantage of FF and is not much outresolved by the 90D because of the absence of the AA-filter. The 90D scores for liveview because it is nearly as good as a mirrorless as the M6 II. I've decided to take the 5DSR rather than the 90D on our next birding holiday because of the FF, and I find that the 100-400mm II on the 5DSR takes the 1.4xTC very well when required, with still good AF.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Mar 11, 2020)

I took a 5DsR to Iceland this summer. I was satisfied with the IQ; it didn't blow me away until you realize the scope of the file size you're working with. One thing that struck me though: With how magnificent the landscapes were when combined with the photo size, you almost have to print your shots up LARGE to really make use of the camera. Not that I'm complaining, but I think a lot of people that didn't like the 5Ds/R were using lower resolution monitors and maybe not printing or using it for broad panoramic shots where it really shines. It's about use-case.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Mar 11, 2020)

AlanF said:


> My personal opinion is that if you are using just the OVF, the 5DSR has better AF (central points at f5.6 and faster but the centre plus helpers is still good at f8), the advantage of FF and is not much outresolved by the 90D because of the absence of the AA-filter. The 90D scores for liveview because it is nearly as good as a mirrorless as the M6 II. I've decided to take the 5DSR rather than the 90D on our next birding holiday because of the FF, and I find that the 100-400mm II on the 5DSR takes the 1.4xTC very well when required, with still good AF.




I'm get the 600iii in the next month....may have to see what 5DSRs are going for used.....could be a beastly combo.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 11, 2020)

The one real advantage of the Canon 5DS (or 5DSr) especially when shooting at ISO 100 as I do in the studio using strobes is the ability to hard crop if you want to and still retain sharp & well defined photos, this goes well beyond what I can achieve with a 5D MKIV or the 6D MKII. Canon sensor tech must have moved on since 2015 when this camera was announced so in theory a 45MP sensor should be better in low-light, colour rendition and noise to the point that the 5MP difference is negated in the EOS-R5. 

Aside from birders / wildlife photographers, for what I shoot and for how I display my images 45MP to 60MP is plenty of resolution and if Canon are shifting the game to mirrorless then its a camera I have to consider going forwards to replace my hard-worked 5DS.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 11, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> I'm get the 600iii in the next month....may have to see what 5DSRs are going for used.....could be a beastly combo.


They are going for about £1000 new from very reliable grey market sellers now.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 11, 2020)

tron said:


> I am satisfied with my 5DsR for birding but I realize that you have your reasons.Still, I think of it as a downgrade. Of course it is strictly my personal opinion and YMMV.
> 
> EDIT: I see you have an EOS 50D. Maybe that could be upgraded to 90D but I understand that maybe this will not get you much so it is much better to have it than get peanuts for it.



I doubt my 50D is worth anything at all. The 5Ds has sat unused for a couple of years, so I won't miss it, plus it's in good condition. Increasing pixel density and frame rate is not a downgrade to me! In good light I don't expect much of a penalty on IQ going back to crop  Obviously if money were no object I'd look at getting something better, but I don't take so many photographs nowadays and can't justify the price of a 5D4, R, R5 etc.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 11, 2020)

scyrene said:


> I'm still hoping to trade mine in for (or at least towards) a 90D!


And when you do you'll be able to experience a warm glow of satisfaction in knowing that you've made the recipient of your 5Ds so happy


----------



## scyrene (Mar 11, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> And when you do you'll be able to experience a warm glow of satisfaction in knowing that you've made the recipient of your 5Ds so happy



I hope so! I'm sure it'll do much better in the hands of someone else


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 11, 2020)

scyrene said:


> I hope so! I'm sure it'll do much better in the hands of someone else


I know what you mean about processing the large files. Even on my recent iMac I have to be careful not to clog it up. Sometimes I'll process a raw file from my original 5D and it's so quick ! Also unless you're looking at heavy cropping 50mp really is about large output size. If I reduce the 5Ds output to the same as my M5 I've got to really stick my nose against an A3 Super sized print to see the difference. All low ISO of course.

What I've realised now though is that so much of modern amateur photography is gazing at the detail of an image at 100%, and to this end the more mp the better.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 11, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> I know what you mean about processing the large files. Even on my recent iMac I have to be careful not to clog it up. Sometimes I'll process a raw file from my original 5D and it's so quick ! Also unless you're looking at heavy cropping 50mp really is about large output size. If I reduce the 5Ds output to the same as my M5 I've got to really stick my nose against an A3 Super sized print to see the difference. All low ISO of course.
> 
> What I've realised now though is that so much of modern amateur photography is gazing at the detail of an image at 100%, and to this end the more mp the better.



Yeah, absolutely. The main problem was I got a laptop with a 128GB hard drive which has been a bottleneck - a full day shooting on the 5Ds could easily exceed my free disk space by two or three times, which slows down transfers and sorting through them. In the end, most of the time, the 5D3 is adequate. I don't even need a new camera, just fancy a change.


----------



## Act444 (Mar 12, 2020)

tron said:


> Having gone the same way (2nd 5DsR) I can assure you that a second one will cure your 5Ds camera loneliness
> 
> By the way both my 5DsR cameras were bought brand new grey import. I didn't regret it. But that's me of course. YMMV.
> 
> EDIT: You are correct about buffer depth. I use the latest type Compact Flash (Sandisk Extreme Pro 150MB/sec write) and silent 3fps shooting to mitigate this issue as much as possible.



With the 5DSR, I typically set the camera to write to CF for speed, then after the shoot, copy all images over to SD for easy import. Works well for me.


----------



## tron (Mar 12, 2020)

Act444 said:


> With the 5DSR, I typically set the camera to write to CF for speed, then after the shoot, copy all images over to SD for easy import. Works well for me.


This is what I also do with the slight addition that I try to review them in order to delete the obvious failures and then copy them to the SD card.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 14, 2020)

I may have a bad version but my 5DSR has never been my favourite camera. My experience is the image quality of the 5DIV is better. Out of the camera images are softer. Over the years people have suggested ways of improving the images by the way it’s processed. I didn’t really get all this. I want to just judge on a screen straight out of the camera. Mine in particular works very poorly with a Canon 100-400 II.
I can understand birders desiring the 50MP flies but generally for the variety of things I do it’s overkill and not a huge advantage. You’d want to be cropping big time or printing huge. The 5DSR itself is very poor handling the files especially in Raw. The buffer files fast as is very slow to clear. (This is an exaggeration as it’s in a few seconds but at times that is an enormously frustrating few seconds).
Irs not all bad. In studio it performs very well. Landscape on a tripod at ISO 100 it’s great. 
Given a choice I’d choose a 5DIV in a heartbeat . A much more useful camera overall.


----------



## tron (Mar 14, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> I may have a bad version but my 5DSR has never been my favourite camera. My experience is the image quality of the 5DIV is better. Out of the camera images are softer. Over the years people have suggested ways of improving the images by the way it’s processed. I didn’t really get all this. I want to just judge on a screen straight out of the camera. Mine in particular works very poorly with a Canon 100-400 II.
> I can understand birders desiring the 50MP flies but generally for the variety of things I do it’s overkill and not a huge advantage. You’d want to be cropping big time or printing huge. The 5DSR itself is very poor handling the files especially in Raw. The buffer files fast as is very slow to clear. (This is an exaggeration as it’s in a few seconds but at times that is an enormously frustrating few seconds).
> Irs not all bad. In studio it performs very well. Landscape on a tripod at ISO 100 it’s great.
> Given a choice I’d choose a 5DIV in a heartbeat . A much more useful camera overall.


5DIV is a very nice camera especially if you like low light shooting. But 5DsR is very good as a birding camera if you do not want to use a 1DxII or 1DxIII with a 2XIII teleconverter between the camera and the lens. The 5DsR with 100-400 is a very versatile combination not only for birds but for landscapes and close ups as well. So If you are on an excursion and want to travel light this is the solution.


----------



## Frodo (Mar 15, 2020)

Lots of discussion about file sizes. The 5DsR mRaw files are fundamentally different to the full Raw files, not just in resolution. Similar to the files used in the first colour TVs. They have nowhere near the malleability of the full Raws and quickly go green in shadows. Unusable in my view.
I automatically convert my 5DsR Raws into DNG when importing into Lightroom. Testing shows no real loss in quality, but a substantial decrease in file size.
In terms of IQ, the 5DsR is noticeably better than the EosR, certainly in terms of resolution. The R gains only slightly in terms of dynamic range.

In spite of the better IQ and OVF, I find my R has relegated my 5DsR to the drawer. It has become a niche camera for when I need 50 MP. Ironically, it has become my backup camera for events, in spite of having two card slots.

Nevertheless, I will keep it for the foreseeable future.


----------



## AaronT (Mar 15, 2020)

I love my 5DsR, this photo is taken with a 100-400L MKI with a 1.4TC, 560mm equivalent. Even heavily cropped the image quality is excellent. BTW, F9.5, 1/500/ ISO 320, shot RAW, converted with Capture One


----------



## tron (Mar 16, 2020)

Aaron you made me almost regret selling my 5DsR (but fortunately I have another one with even less than 100 clicks).
I have enjoyed using it and I intend continuing to. I just have to persuade myself giving another try at 1.4XIII. I have mixed results with it. I rarely had a success with 7DII+400DOII+1.4XIII lately (but even the very few very sharp I had must mean that the problem lied with 7DII's focusing and not with the IQ of the 1.4X. Interesting thing I had more than decent success rate with the very combination back in Oct 2016, March 2017, April and May 2017 in various excursions. A few years ago (2015) I had tried it with the following combination 5D3 + 100-400 II + 1.4XIII and it was successful.

So I will try it again with my second 5DsR and 100-400II sometime.

Frodo it depends on what you want to shoot. For birding I find 5DsR excellent. At the same time it can be combined with 100-400 for both birding (although with limited magnification), some landscaping and certainly close-up photography. For just landscapes the 30Mpixels of EOS R are enough (at least for me). And they are aided by the improved DR. I have never tried the mRAW settings. In fact I remembered them by reading your post!


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 18, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> I may have a bad version but my 5DSR has never been my favourite camera. My experience is the image quality of the 5DIV is better. Out of the camera images are softer. Over the years people have suggested ways of improving the images by the way it’s processed. I didn’t really get all this. I want to just judge on a screen straight out of the camera. Mine in particular works very poorly with a Canon 100-400 II.



Something is wrong with your camera. My first thought would be general AF misalignment on the camera body assuming you have the same experience on all lenses. And you're obviously not encountering this with the 5D IV which tends to rule out lens issues. 

IQ with my 5Ds and 100-400II is exceptional before any processing. I've been very, very happy with the combo in all shooting conditions.


----------



## rwatson767 (Mar 19, 2020)

I jumped on the 5Ds at the first time it was available. Never looked backed. I can make a very acceptable 8X10 from less than 5% of the RAW file. I have always used it in RAW. I print 90% of my mages and rarely dump one for any reason. Folks ask me every week how do I get the detailed images. I tell them it is all in the the 50MP. I also use all L lenses.


----------



## Act444 (Mar 23, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> I may have a bad version but my 5DSR has never been my favourite camera. My experience is the image quality of the 5DIV is better. Out of the camera images are softer. Over the years people have suggested ways of improving the images by the way it’s processed. I didn’t really get all this. I want to just judge on a screen straight out of the camera. Mine in particular works very poorly with a Canon 100-400 II.
> I can understand birders desiring the 50MP flies but generally for the variety of things I do it’s overkill and not a huge advantage. You’d want to be cropping big time or printing huge. The 5DSR itself is very poor handling the files especially in Raw. The buffer files fast as is very slow to clear. (This is an exaggeration as it’s in a few seconds but at times that is an enormously frustrating few seconds).
> Irs not all bad. In studio it performs very well. Landscape on a tripod at ISO 100 it’s great.
> Given a choice I’d choose a 5DIV in a heartbeat . A much more useful camera overall.



My 5DSR has required adjustment with most of the lenses I've used with it. It is my experience that 50MP is very unforgiving of even the SLIGHTEST MFA misalignment. But my goodness - once I've finally gotten focus to be dead on - nothing else can top it at this point. The 5D4 files are mushy by comparison and its colors are meh. As long as you are at low ISO the 5DSR DEFINITELY puts out the higher quality files, no doubt in my mind. 

That being said, I agree with your last sentence. The 5D4 is the better all-rounder. 30MP is plenty for me in all but the most demanding of situations. Also far superior in low-light (the real Achilles heel of the 5DS cameras).


----------



## questionsabouthigh (Mar 25, 2020)

I'm in the market for a new high MP camera. Mostly for archival work. I have used a 5DSR in the past, with a 24-70 f2.8L II, which was not the right lens (field curvature caused problems, but I didn't have enough space to use a 100mm macro, or 85mm). Seems like the time to go mirrorless, but with which lens? The RF 35mm macro? Any info on the field curvature for that lens, or field curvature on the new RF lenses in general? (Has mirrorless helped field curvature?) And when might we guess the new high MP body will arrive? I could definitely use more than 50mp.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 26, 2020)

questionsabouthigh said:


> I'm in the market for a new high MP camera. Mostly for archival work. I have used a 5DSR in the past, with a 24-70 f2.8L II, which was not the right lens (field curvature caused problems, but I didn't have enough space to use a 100mm macro, or 85mm). Seems like the time to go mirrorless, but with which lens? The RF 35mm macro? Any info on the field curvature for that lens, or field curvature on the new RF lenses in general? (Has mirrorless helped field curvature?) And when might we guess the new high MP body will arrive? I could definitely use more than 50mp.



As near as I can tell the only "natural" help for field curvature is to be far away from the subject. It's a matter of your geometry, not the lens. If you're close to the center of your object, you're significantly further away from its edges, proportionally speaking. (You can visualize it as a right triangle. The horizontal leg is one half of your subject, the vertical leg is your line of sight, camera to center of object, and the hyptoenuse is your distance to the edge of the object you're photographing. The closer your camera is, the shorter the vertical leg, and if you compare the vertical leg to the hypotenuse, the hypotenuse is longer. Whereas if you're relatively far away, long vertical leg, your hypotenuse is almost the same length. Since the edges of your object are significantly further away than the center, on your pic you'll see the center bulged out.

It's possible there's some sort of lens that distorts in such a way to cancel this out, but to be honest, that strikes me as a bad idea (because the amount it would have to distort would depend on distance to the target); and if I am right about this surely the designers see it too. (If I am wrong, the designers are right.)

It may be possible to photoshop your curvature out, too. If you keep your camera in a fixed location, you can photograph a grid, play around in photoshop until the grid doesn't look like barrel distortion, remember that setting, and apply it every time you photograph something (there's probably an automated way to do that in photoshop; but I don't use it, personally).


----------



## Frodo (Mar 28, 2020)

questionsabouthigh said:


> I'm in the market for a new high MP camera. Mostly for archival work. I have used a 5DSR in the past, with a 24-70 f2.8L II, which was not the right lens (field curvature caused problems, but I didn't have enough space to use a 100mm macro, or 85mm). Seems like the time to go mirrorless, but with which lens? The RF 35mm macro? Any info on the field curvature for that lens, or field curvature on the new RF lenses in general? (Has mirrorless helped field curvature?) And when might we guess the new high MP body will arrive? I could definitely use more than 50mp.


I actually use my EF 50mm macro more often than my 100mm macro. Great for document and slide copying. Flat field and sharp st f/5.6. Only issue is slow noisy focussing.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 28, 2020)

Frodo said:


> I actually use my EF 50mm macro more often than my 100mm macro. Great for document and slide copying. Flat field and sharp st f/5.6. Only issue is slow noisy focussing.



How far are you from those documents?


----------



## questionsabouthigh (Mar 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> How far are you from those documents?


Not far (60cm?), and some of them are very large. So in the past I used a 24-70 to get everything in. Probably 35mm would be fine. With a 50 I'd have to take a lot of care, and work slower. Always compromises!


----------



## questionsabouthigh (Mar 28, 2020)

Frodo said:


> I actually use my EF 50mm macro more often than my 100mm macro. Great for document and slide copying. Flat field and sharp st f/5.6. Only issue is slow noisy focussing.


This is great to know! I have also noticed some companies using a Sigma 50mm for document imagining, and according to this it looks pretty flat: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/11/practical-use-of-field-curvature-graphs-the-50mm-primes/


----------



## SteveC (Mar 28, 2020)

Figuring the typical document is probably 15 cm center to longest edge, and your distance is about 60, yeah, I would expect some curvature, but not a huge amount. Apparently I'd be wrong in that expectation!

Well, I learned something new today.


----------



## questionsabouthigh (Mar 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Figuring the typical document is probably 15 cm center to longest edge, and your distance is about 60, yeah, I would expect some curvature, but not a huge amount. Apparently I'd be wrong in that expectation!
> 
> Well, I learned something new today.


Some of my documents are A3 or larger. And there are a lot of them (thousands), so some compromises are necessary. I'm not worried about lens distortion (easily fixed in Lightroom), but with my 24-70, at F8, some of the image is very soft, because the plane of focus is not flat (is not parallel to the document). Macro lenses tend to be better, and longer focal lengths are better. But I would need more distance than I have to use a 100mm or an 85mm.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 29, 2020)

questionsabouthigh said:


> I'm in the market for a new high MP camera. Mostly for archival work. I have used a 5DSR in the past, with a 24-70 f2.8L II, which was not the right lens (field curvature caused problems, but I didn't have enough space to use a 100mm macro, or 85mm). Seems like the time to go mirrorless, but with which lens? The RF 35mm macro? Any info on the field curvature for that lens, or field curvature on the new RF lenses in general? (Has mirrorless helped field curvature?) And when might we guess the new high MP body will arrive? I could definitely use more than 50mp.


The EF 50 f2.5 Macro has outstanding flat field performance and costs $150 on eBay. Indeed it was designed in part to do exactly what you are doing, sure it isn't weatherproof and AF is slow, but why would you be using AF anyway for critical archival work.


----------



## questionsabouthigh (Mar 29, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The EF 50 f2.5 Macro has outstanding flat field performance and costs $150 on eBay. Indeed it was designed in part to do exactly what you are doing, sure it isn't weatherproof and AF is slow, but why would you be using AF anyway for critical archival work.


Thanks so much. I'm certainly not photographing documents in the rain, and I don't need AF (though it should work more than well enough on mirrorless). Bring on the new high MP body!


----------



## Frodo (Mar 29, 2020)

SteveC said:


> How far are you from those documents?


An A4 or letter page is about 1:9, which on the 50mm distance scale is 55cm or 1.8 feet from the focal plane (not the front of the lens).
I copied many photos of varying sizes for a book my father wrote. Set the 50mm / camera on a tripod facing down. Bounce flash, remote control. Quick and easy. My 100mm macro is operating at a distance of about a metre (so almost twice as far), which is cumbersome for this task.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 24, 2020)

My 5DS/R has served me very well indeed. I like it even more than I did the 5DII. Its also still my goto camera compared to the R.

The R5 will probably be a better camera in many ways - especially because mirrorless excels at advanced and precise AF. But also things such as touch screen, fully articulated screen, more fps if you need it etc. Still, I am going to wait for Canon's high megapix missorless camera, because I doubt that the R5 will bring visually better files to the table. For that we will have to wait a little longer.


----------

