# Canon 5DSR or 5DS for serious macro?



## laza99 (Mar 30, 2015)

Hey Folks!

Which is the better choice for insect macro photography? Stacked shots and such. I'm asking since I can't really find a reference on the Nikon 800E-s if that struggles with moire on the fine structured skin of an insect, I hope you get my dilemma. I would surely buy the 5DSR for the better details, tho I'm interested in your opinion if that would be a bottleneck on the moire side during my application.

My current gear is a 6D and Zeiss100MP, tripod, lights. I'm into this stuff all the way, so I eagerly wait for your responses on which to prepurchase. Thanks in advance!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Mar 30, 2015)

I shoot macro with the D-800E and I have found no issues with Moire. Even when I used focus stacking.

Whether the Canon is better or worse than the Nikon is unknown until the Canon comes out and is tested.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 30, 2015)

laza99 said:


> Which is the better choice for insect macro photography? Stacked shots and such.



Good question - I guess most natural textures shouldn't produce moiré, but I'm not sure about insect's eyes in select unlucky situations.

Still, if you're willing to pay the premium, I'd go for the "pirate" R version because with your careful setup and good lenses it might make a small difference. Or wait for reviews, of course.


----------



## K (Mar 31, 2015)

First the facts:

No AA filter or a reduced AA (AA cancellation) is going to offer more resolution. No question about it.

However, there WILL be artifacts and moire in certain images and more resolution may decrease it some, it is never completely eliminated.

These are the facts -

Now for my opinions.

For a lot of photography, you won't have issues with artifacts and moire. So go with the R and don't worry about it. On the other hand, the extra sharpness can only be realized and taken advantage of on huge prints or with a lot of cropping - thus it might just be a wash. Who is your audience? If it is anyone other than a photo critic, you're good. Moire? Artifacts? Sure, they aren't that common, but even so - does the *average *person notice? No.

On the other hand,

The absence of AA filters and the move away from them is a somewhat disappointing indicator of what is going on in the world of digital photography. In other words, the lack of desire for this feature indicates a decreasing amount of knowledge by photographers or at least those who buy photographic equipment, and it also indicates a decline in the standards of photo excellence.

It is far preferable to lose a little bit of resolution, than it is to have moire or artifacts in your image. At least to a discerning eye or a critic. Or to those who know what they're doing. Moire, to those who can recognize quality, sticks out very much and is a visual annoyance. It is also the mark of an amateur.

In the internet world though, having an AA filter is like leprosy. Nikon has done away with it on many of their cameras. Canon still holds on, and for good reason. Nikon is pandering to the consumer demand - even though consumers don't always know what is best for them. This is a failure on the part of Canon to educate the market. Unfortunate for Canon, because the burden falls on them to convince people why they need something that on the surface appears to hinder IQ, not enhance it. While Nikon just removes the filter - and the internet is all about reviews with pixel-peeping and the ONLY lesson learned is all out resolution is better. Canon wins on practicality, Nikon wins in marketing.

And there is a big difference between high resolution and high image quality. Many confuse the two.

Even at the start, Nikon at least offered their platform owners an option. They did away with that. Canon fortunately is giving their users the option. Hopefully, they don't follow suit and do away with the AA filter entirely.

Average people who know nothing about photography aside,

For the vast majority of photography, an AA filter is a great thing to have on a camera sensor. Regardless of resolution. But what about without? The 5DSR has its place. No AA filter is perfectly fine in CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS. Such as a studio. Where you can avoid textures, fabrics or whatever repeating pattern that might generate moire. That way, you can extract the maximum possible resolution from the image for gigantic prints. Not only that, but within the studio - you must have complete creative control too. If you don't have complete creative control - you are still stuck photographing things that may cause moire.

Outside the studio, the AA filter is a big help. You can't control what people wear, or patterns on roofs or buildings, or walls, or carpets or whatever it may be. 

But what are the downsides? AA filter does indeed intentionally blur the image. Does it matter? NO! Not for the vast majority of photography. Again, if we're discussing the utmost in super cropped, pixel peeping madness you won't get the same total resolution as the non-AA filter sensor. But for everything else, it is completely unnoticeable.

To put it simply, you WILL NOT see the resolution penalty on an AA filter, but you CAN see the moire on the sensor without AA. 

It is a trade-off. The geek in me wants all out resolution to pixel peep and admire the detail. However, the realist in me knows this doesn't mean squat anywhere else except for within Lightroom, and I'd rather not get stuck with some heinous moire that will ruin a nice photo even at normal viewing sizes.

I prefer AA.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 31, 2015)

On the subject of Macro and the 5Dsr, I consider Macro shooting a focal length limited subject and therefore a crop sensor may be best.
The 700D will probably get most if not all the detail of the 5Dsr, depending on how strong the AA filter on the new 24MP sensor is.
And you save 3 grand.
If you're using the MP-E or extension tubes it might be possible to get more detail off the full frame sensor, but it's all dependant on the lens then.
And of course if you're not focal length limited (your subject fills the 35mm sensor area) then the 5Dsr will be better.


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 31, 2015)

I have a 5DSR on order and do mainly nature/natural history with "serious" macro. Zeiss Makroplanar 100ZE, MPE65, Stack-shot, ZereneStacker, HeliconFocus, plus a bunch of microscopes and dedicated peltier cooled microscope cameras.

I do not foresee problems with moiré on a grand scale. Although nature can be regular, usually there is sufficient variance to avoid it.

With macro, I see the greater issue with diffraction limitation and effective aperture in macro. The generally cited number for the 5ds is either f/6.7 or f/11. You reach that effective aperture with MPE 65 all open f/2.8 at around 1.5:1 or at around 3:1. At higher magnification, the 5ds will record glorified blur circles, even all open with DOF of something like 50–100 µm.

Will be looking forward to shooting some stacks with 5dmkII and 5DSR and compare.

Re K's preference for AA filters and the amateur statement, I respectfully disagree. 
It is the same situation as with either capturing jpegs or going through RAW processing. It takes more work, but if you know what you do, you have greater control. Moiré can be reduced in post with Gaussian blur, or resize, to just mention the two most obvious approaches. Layer masks could be very powerful tools. But getting definition back from an already blurred image is impossible (short of deconvolution).
Printing/publishing moiréd images can be avoided, but do not blame the camera or the manufacturer; that is operator error. The 5DSR is no camera for casual snap-shooters, but intended for people who are careful with taking images. Similarly, the MPE65 has f/16, but cranking down the f-stop at 5:1 to f/16 results in effective f/stop of f/96. I don't blame Canon for making it possible to take soup images.


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 31, 2015)

My suspicion is neither. Insect photography requires high magnifications using a lens like the MP-E 65. You are going to run into diffraction issues that will negate any extra resolution you have. You may see some improvement at 1x, but beyond that you'll see little difference between a 5Ds/R and a 5D3.


----------



## laza99 (Mar 31, 2015)

Thanks for the answers, especially Zeidora for sharing your experiences! I'll keep my 6D anyways , the 5DSR is gonna be fine for my needs next to the AA filtered 6D body.


----------



## tiredofstitching (Apr 1, 2015)

laza99 said:


> Thanks for the answers, especially Zeidora for sharing your experiences! I'll keep my 6D anyways , the 5DSR is gonna be fine for my needs next to the AA filtered 6D body.



Good choice. Moiré problems are largely over-evaluated. I got a Sony A7r recently, which has a 36Mp with no AA filter, not even a cancelled effect one. On over two thousand shots taken so far — portraits, landscapes, table tops, flowers—, I got only one shot where moiré is visible, on a nylon fabric. And it can be easily removed with the LightRoom moiré removal tool. Since more pixels mean less risk of moiré, the 5DsR will likely not be affected with this problem. Of course if the aim is to shoot close views of fabrics at f8, the experience may differ.


----------



## Pansottin (Aug 27, 2016)

Hi everyone, this an old topic but it is right now for me very important.

I used the 5DMIII for macro work, etc; over the last years (with Canon glass: EF MP-E65mm+EF 100mm 2.8L). Other Canon and Zeiss ZE glass for different applications. All between 35mm and 100mm range. 
My work, even the macro work, is for commercial use (record sleeves, magazine photographic essays, photobooks, etc.) and fine art applications/platinum palladium prints (the bigger the RAW files the better).
I don´t do sports or fast objects. I want to do more portrait work. I shoot forests, macro, still lives (mostly indoors). I shoot general subjects outdoors with natural light (I´ve tons of light in my country even in the winter).
I also own and use a Canon flash 600 EX-RT when needed. I miss tilt & shift lens mostly for creative (art) use (I don´t do architecture but maybe I will soon for commercial work).

I´m a bit disappointed with the new 5DIV (too many compromises; but its a commercial move and I understand that) and I felt that the 5DsR was a bit weak concerning noise even at 100 ISO and lower dynamic range (comparing to Sony, Pentax or Nikon).
After some months waiting for the 5DIV I´m considering again the 5DsR. Even now that the wifi capabilities are possible with the new W-E1 card for that camera too. Controlling the camera via an iPad without touching it will be very nice.

5DsR.
The advantages I see are: 50 megapixels, no AA filter, Live View magnification with x16 (good for macro), RAW, MRAW and SRAW, Time-lapse in camera, the same ergonomics, battery, cards, glass and good UI.

Disavantages
I confess that I´m tired of noise and banding (yes I do a bit of editing and the files form the 5DMIII fall apart easily) from Canon sensors. 
But as I said, I like everything else about Canon: ergonomic, UI, lens, battery, etc. I can´t stand Sony´s UI, as an example; its a mess IMHO. Changing brands it not cheap and there´s no perfect systems.

The MP-E 65mm lens is a unique lens. Only Canon has one .-)

What are your opinions after months of use the 5DsR? What is good and what is bad in your opinion? How to surpass the bad aspects?

Sorry for the long post.
All help is very welcome.
Thanks a lot for all your support.
Regards.


----------



## Zeidora (Aug 28, 2016)

I've been shooting macro including z-stacking with the 5DsR since it came out (had body pre-ordered). Except for larger files, there have been no issues. I looked for diffraction limitation, and it seems to crop at effective f-stop 11, so MPE 65 wide open is tapped out at 4:1; at 5:1 you only get empty magnification. Showed that in some other post previously.

Re banding, I haven't run into problems. Maybe it's my subject matter, but it's just not an issue. Did not notice it with the 5D2 either. Never worked with a 5D3, don't plan on getting a 5D4. With z-stacking, stacking artifacts are an issue, but that is a post-processing problem, not due to sensor. My short stacks are 20 frames, average 40-80, tall 120-200 frames. 

One of the most annoying things is the relatively long time between pressing shutter, and seeing image on back LCD. Nothing to change that. It's the price of 50 MP, which I am happy to pay.

WiFi et al., I could not care less. No GPS is a bit irritating. For location shots, I now use iPhone for georeferencing. As I use a stand-alone FileMaker database for record-keeping, I have to transcribe data anyway. The external GPS solution from Canon is beyond clunky.

The 5DsR is now my main camera, also use it for general outdoors shots. Works fine with TSE 17 I recently got. Fun little toy. Lens errors are magnified on the small pixels, so I would consider tossing the Canon 100M, and getting the Zeiss 100M. It only goes to 1:2, which is irritating, but image quality is top notch (big surprise there). Extension rings bridge the gap between 1:2 and 1:1, then MPE 65.


----------



## Pansottin (Aug 28, 2016)

Thank you very much for your report. Indeed helpful.
When you say "re banding" you mean the usual banding when the editing is more extreme?
What about noise. Visible noise at low (100 ISO). Is it present? If present is it a problem for you?
Would love to see examples of your work.

And yes the Zeiss glass is very good. The 135mm is even better (not macro) .-)


----------



## Zeidora (Aug 28, 2016)

Pansottin said:


> Thank you very much for your report. Indeed helpful.
> When you say "re banding" you mean the usual banding when the editing is more extreme?
> What about noise. Visible noise at low (100 ISO). Is it present? If present is it a problem for you?
> Would love to see examples of your work.
> ...



Re banding, properly expose image in camera, and avoid "extreme" editing. IMHO, digital editing options are no excuse for improper shooting. I grew up on film (and still shoot 4x5" chromes), so maybe that affects my approach.

Re noise, I shoot almost exclusively at ISO 100 on tripod. I have no issues with noise. Again, think about the intrinsic limitation of the files. If you take a 1% crop and blow it up to 10x20 feet/meters and view it from 1'/m, yes, you will see noise. However, if I take a 50 MP file and print it at >360 dpi on 17x22" on an Epson 3880, there is no noise to speak of.

I do know what strong noise looks like, as I also run a scanning electron microscopy facility. Signal-to-noise issues and instrument settings with various trade-offs (VP settings vs. HiVac, detector, working distance, intermediate aperture size, I-probe setting, EHT, noise reduction methods [line integration vs. frame integration vs. line averaging]) is my daily battle. And that on rather small 7 MP files. Most are shown at ~2" so no issue. The ones for the book covers are carefully selected, and then I spend some time on them.

My photography is mainly in support of my science. I don't do "art", though my images have been shown in various natural history museums. Have a look at the publications section (including the books tab), and the orchids section. The galleries are hopelessly out of date, most are film scans.


----------



## Pansottin (Aug 30, 2016)

Thank you Zeidora for your help. Thank you all.
An additional question concerning Live View/x16 magnification for manual focusing:
with the new W-E1 Canon wifi card (I know it´s not yet available) will I have the screen of my camera with all the functions in my iPad? The resolution of the iPad will be an advantage or not for Live View use?
Your opinions please. Thanks.


----------



## Zeidora (Sep 3, 2016)

Pansottin said:


> Thank you Zeidora for your help. Thank you all.
> An additional question concerning Live View/x16 magnification for manual focusing:
> with the new W-E1 Canon wifi card (I know it´s not yet available) will I have the screen of my camera with all the functions in my iPad? The resolution of the iPad will be an advantage or not for Live View use?
> Your opinions please. Thanks.


No idea. I asked CPS re capabilities, and they were clueless even whether remote shooting is going to be possible or not. As far as I can see Camranger has magnification option. I have the W-E1 on order, will see by November whether canon app delivers, otherwise get Camranger.


----------

