# The 5DsR mk2



## brianftpc (Nov 16, 2017)

If only there were a leak to give me a reason not to buy the a7Riii


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 16, 2017)

The 5DSr is a great example of a camera that may not be the best (except for resolution) featurewise on paper, but consistently turns out stunningly good results in use.

It's a solid workhorse, and I have no doubt that the updated version will be even better, but more importantly, dependable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2017)

The 5DsR II will be an excellent camera that improves incrementally on the current version in several ways. 

Given the bias evident in your poll choices, you should just buy the a7RIII now.


----------



## brianftpc (Nov 16, 2017)

I own a 1Dx, 1Dx mk2 and 5DsR...theres no bias...its honesty. Canon cant help itself from protecting the cinema line to make the camera that needs to be made. Also hows it gonna handicap the 5DsR mk2 to protect the 5D mk4. We all know the 5DsR wont be 4k60p...but it should be and not at 800mbps. Will it have 4k hdmi out...probably not. Now I cant do 4k live streams. I dont want to switch. I hate the way the a9 feels in my hands and ive shot over 7,000 pics with it. I want DPAF but whats the point if I need to spend over 1,000 per hour of CFast2 4k60p. Im willing to live with GOOD ENOUGH video AF sony has now.

Id pay 6,000 for a 5DsR mk2 with low light equal to the a7r iii, 4k 60p, IBIS, 4k hdmi out, 8-10 fps, 50 RAW frame buffer uncompressed, DPAF, wifi. Thats all very realistic. If I saw a leak that it was coming out next summer Id wait for it unless the A7Siii pulled me away from the C200.

I want canon to do better. Im not gonna make excuses for it to keep being less than it should be.

Oh and my 5DsR is USELESS for profesisonal video. thats really the biggest thing pushing me away from it. Hell a canon xf400 has DPAF and 4k60P out.


----------



## Memdroid (Nov 16, 2017)

5DS series was never advertised as a dedicated or capable video camera, but rather a big megapixel monster for still images. Still is actually and the successor probably will continue that trend.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 16, 2017)

Canon specifically made and marketed the 5DSR to people interested in very high resolution *stills* imagery, and whist I didn't get one I applaud them for making such a dedicated camera that still hasn't been out resolved. To moan about it's lack of video functions is utterly ridiculous, features that didn't make sense on the design brief were specifically taken away from the 5D MkIII body to make way for more relevant high resolution stills functionality.

I will be getting a 5DSR MkII if it has on chip ADC or similar performance and I'll get one if it doesn't do video at all, because I'd be buying it as a high resolution stills camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2017)

brianftpc said:


> I own a 1Dx, 1Dx mk2 and 5DsR...theres no bias...its honesty.



Right. It's DoA or blows away the competition, neither of which is at all likely. Or it's mirrorless, which hopefully you know is completely unrealistic. The most logical option, equivalent to the competition, you describe as too little too late (because no one cares about things like reliability and lens selection, right?). Sure, no bias there… :




brianftpc said:


> I'd pay 6,000 for a 5DsR mk2 with low light equal to the a7r iii, 4k 60p, *IBIS*, 4k hdmi out, 8-10 fps, 50 RAW frame buffer uncompressed, DPAF, wifi. Thats all very realistic.



Yes, IBIS is very realistic in a Canon body, and the high-resolution full frame camera is the most logical place for them to introduce it. 

Dude, just buy the Sony, or else you'll never be happy!


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 16, 2017)

brianftpc said:


> I own a 1Dx, 1Dx mk2 and 5DsR...theres no bias...its honesty. Canon cant help itself from protecting the cinema line to make the camera that needs to be made. Also hows it gonna handicap the 5DsR mk2 to protect the 5D mk4. We all know the 5DsR wont be 4k60p...but it should be and not at 800mbps. Will it have 4k hdmi out...probably not. Now I cant do 4k live streams. I dont want to switch. I hate the way the a9 feels in my hands and ive shot over 7,000 pics with it. I want DPAF but whats the point if I need to spend over 1,000 per hour of CFast2 4k60p. Im willing to live with GOOD ENOUGH video AF sony has now.
> 
> Id pay 6,000 for a 5DsR mk2 with low light equal to the a7r iii, 4k 60p, IBIS, 4k hdmi out, 8-10 fps, 50 RAW frame buffer uncompressed, DPAF, wifi. Thats all very realistic. If I saw a leak that it was coming out next summer Id wait for it unless the A7Siii pulled me away from the C200.
> 
> ...



The fact you have Canon does not mean the poll is not biased. The blend of questions is biased, the reason you set up the poll is biased towards a weak point of Canon (video).
I presume you will not be applying for a job at Gallup any time soon.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 16, 2017)

brianftpc said:


> If only there were a leak to give me a reason not to buy the a7Riii



What a ridiculous poll. Three negative choices, one pretty irrelevant and the only positive choice so distorted in unlikely features that it is difficult to expect them and check that box.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 16, 2017)

The 5DSR Mark I hasn't really impressed me as a camera.
Maybe its my version but the 5D III and 5D IV that I have are better in terms of image quality.
It doesn't perform well as the ISO goes up.
I was never blown away by its detail as I didn't think it ever showed any more detail than a 5D III.
I'd find the image quality in the 5D IV much better than it.
You know the file size when you are buying it but 50mp tends to be a waste.
I think they crammed too many MP's in the sensor to get to fifty and overstretched it.
I've felt the same with the 7DII (similar if not same MP density).
It wasn't a great buy.
It is slow, there is a second or two delay between taking the photo and it displaying which I find annoying.
It performs best on a tripod at ISO100.
If they bring out a 5DSR Mark II it would need to be really excellent to convince me to upgrade.
The detail it would bring out would have to be a step above the 5D IV.
It's performance at ISO 1600 onwards would need to be alot better

Of course it could be mirrorless which would be a different take.
I think if Canon go mirrorless the first camera has to be very good.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 16, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> The 5DSR Mark I hasn't really impressed me as a camera.
> Maybe its my version but the 5D III and 5D IV that I have are better in terms of image quality.
> It doesn't perform well as the ISO goes up.
> I was never blown away by its detail as I didn't think it ever showed any more detail than a 5D III.
> I'd find the image quality in the 5D IV much better than it.



There is something wrong with your 5DSR. The linear resolution of mine at iso640 is 30-40% higher in terms of lp/mm for all my lenses using charts and distinctly sharper for reproducing images than my 5DIV, and 50% more than my previous 5DIII.
I don't think my findings are unique. Lensrentals measured MTFs from the 5DS, 5DSR and 5DIII back in 2015 and showed up to a 50% increase in the centre for a sharp lens on the 5DSR vs 5DIII https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 16, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> The 5DSR Mark I hasn't really impressed me as a camera.
> Maybe its my version but the 5D III and 5D IV that I have are better in terms of image quality.
> It doesn't perform well as the ISO goes up.
> I was never blown away by its detail as I didn't think it ever showed any more detail than a 5D III.
> I'd find the image quality in the 5D IV much better than it.



What lenses, what setup? The difference between 5DSR and 5D III is night and day - with the right lenses.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 16, 2017)

AlanF said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > If only there were a leak to give me a reason not to buy the a7Riii
> ...



Total waste of valuable internet space.


----------



## JoSto (Nov 16, 2017)

Such a nonsense. But I have to congratulate the marketing departments of the camera companies. They are so successful by telling people that their gear is not good enough. Youtube also has a significant share in this stupidity.

If you know what you are doing there is zero possibility that there is a picture you cant take because you have "just" a 5dmk4 or a 1DXmk2. I still have a original 1DX and all my big prints look amazing. Just 18 MPix. More than enough.


----------



## Frodo (Nov 16, 2017)

My first reaction was that this thread is not worth a reply, but it annoyed me enough that I will.
I just bought a 5DsR. A week ago. I bought it for landscape and wedding photography. It noticeably outresolves my 6D from my sharp 35/2IS to my less sharp 24-105/5IS, much as Roger reported. I love the tonality and I enjoy working with the camera - I've owned several Canon dslrs since the 300D including the 5D and 5DII, so I felt right at home.
Do I need 50MP? Mostly no. But its like having a 50-100mm zoom that I shoot mostly at 50mm. I print moderately large landscapes and its nice to have the resolution when I need it. Very few of my prints would benefit from an extra stop in the shadows. 
Do I shoot video? Rarely. Criticising the 5DsR for not shooting video is like criticising my Italian V-twin motorcycle for being poor off-road.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 16, 2017)

Canon already out-sells every competitor and their market share is growing.

The 5DS MkII will be one of the best cameras ever made (while at the same time having less than 14 stops of DR and a moderate burst rate, because the ecosystem as a whole is more important than any one feature).


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 16, 2017)

> The 5DS MkII will be one of the best cameras ever made

From what I heard there won't be a 5DS mark II, only 5DSR mark II. 

One of the compromises of the 5DSR design was that it needed to keep the low pass filter and have an additional 'antifilter' put to cancel this out in order for the design to have commonality with the 5DS.

In order to remove this compromise in the 5DSR II there won't be an option for low pass filter at all.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 16, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> > The 5DS MkII will be one of the best cameras ever made
> 
> From what I heard there won't be a 5DS mark II, only 5DSR mark II.
> 
> ...



The "5DSR" name exists to separate it from the "5DS", but when there is no "S" model there is no reason to use the "SR" designation.
It will just be called the "5DS MkII", kind of like how there was no "Nikon D810E" even though the D810 follows the D800E configuration.


----------



## bhf3737 (Nov 16, 2017)

brianftpc said:


> I own a 1Dx, 1Dx mk2 and 5DsR...theres no bias...its honesty. Canon cant help itself from protecting the cinema line to make the camera that needs to be made. Also hows it gonna handicap the 5DsR mk2 to protect the 5D mk4. We all know the 5DsR wont be 4k60p...but it should be and not at 800mbps. Will it have 4k hdmi out...probably not. Now I cant do 4k live streams. I dont want to switch. I hate the way the a9 feels in my hands and ive shot over 7,000 pics with it. I want DPAF but whats the point if I need to spend over 1,000 per hour of CFast2 4k60p. Im willing to live with GOOD ENOUGH video AF sony has now.
> 
> Id pay 6,000 for a 5DsR mk2 with low light equal to the a7r iii, 4k 60p, IBIS, 4k hdmi out, 8-10 fps, 50 RAW frame buffer uncompressed, DPAF, wifi. Thats all very realistic. If I saw a leak that it was coming out next summer Id wait for it unless the A7Siii pulled me away from the C200.
> 
> ...



Could you be kind enough to tell me about your workflow of how you live-stream in 4K out of any currently available DSLR or mirrorless camera in a sustainable way (say for a typical 2-hour corporate function) and what is the cost of additional hardware setup you have. If that camera exists I'll definitely buy it in a blink of eye! 

You complain about lack of 4K out and 4k60p in a still oriented Canon camera. Please let me know any other brand DSLR or mirrorless camera that can do both (i.e. 4k internal recording and 4k out simultaneously) without crippling either the bit rate (min 150 mbps) or bit depth (4:2:2, 10 bit), and again I will buy that camera in a blink of eye! 
There is an obvious reason that Canon uses over $1,000 per hour CFast2 card to deliver 4k60p contents in a reliable and dependable way. Same does RED and even Sony pro video line. Professional select tools that deliver what promised and matches their needs. 5DSR has been a tool that can deliver excellent hi-res stills and the II version will definitely push the boundary of image quality even further.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 16, 2017)

brianftpc said:


> Hell a canon xf400 has DPAF and 4k60P out.



I'm curious how you'd expect canon to mimic a non-sealed and vented camcorder in a sealed DSLR body?


----------



## Act444 (Nov 17, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> The 5DSR Mark I hasn't really impressed me as a camera.
> Maybe its my version but the 5D III and 5D IV that I have are better in terms of image quality.
> It doesn't perform well as the ISO goes up.
> I was never blown away by its detail as I didn't think it ever showed any more detail than a 5D III.
> I'd find the image quality in the 5D IV much better than it.



Wow...not sure what lens you were using on it but having shot with all three cameras, I can tell you there’s no comparison. The 5DSR is head and shoulders above the other two when it comes to resolving power. If you put a quality lens on the R, preferably an image-stabilized one, it should *not* leave you wanting.


----------



## Adelino (Nov 17, 2017)

Third option but no IBIS.


----------



## James Larsen (Nov 18, 2017)

It's going to be decent, but too late in the game (as usual). :-\


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 18, 2017)

James Larsen said:


> It's going to be decent, but too late in the game (as usual). :-\



Not for me it isn't. I am looking forwards to it and am happy to bide my time until it arrives and gets shaken down.


----------



## Isaacheus (Nov 19, 2017)

Adelino said:


> Third option but no IBIS.



Does Canon have any patents on ibis or similar tech? A high MP rig would be the logical place to have it
I would be looking at the next 5dsr type body to see if it fits what I'm wanting, I'm pretty sure Canon could put all the pieces together in one rig, just not that confident that they will


----------



## midluk (Nov 19, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> Adelino said:
> 
> 
> > Third option but no IBIS.
> ...


I'm sure they have a patent, but IBIS on EF mount will not happen. IBIS moves the sensor outside of the image circle which the mount, lenses and size of mirror box are designed for. Sony didn't care about image degradation at the corners, but Canon is building real professional products where they would not allow such a compromise.
Only chance for IBIS in EF I see would be APC-H (or APS-C without EF-S compatibility).


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 19, 2017)

For high-resolution macro photography the pixel shift feature in the A7RIII is a hugely significant development. 

I haven't tried it out yet, but it could be a game changer.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 19, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> For high-resolution macro photography the pixel shift feature in the A7RIII is a hugely significant development.
> 
> I haven't tried it out yet, but it could be a game changer.



An improvement with *many* caveats, maybe.

A game changer, no, not even close. Other manufacturers have been doing it for years to little fanfare, indeed Hasselblad have dropped the feature due to the underwhelming response.

But tell me, what does the 5DSR not do for your high resolution macro photography?


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 19, 2017)

When is the rumored MkII coming out?


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 19, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> Adelino said:
> 
> 
> > Third option but no IBIS.
> ...



None. Notta. Not. One. Single. Patent.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 19, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> For high-resolution macro photography the pixel shift feature in the A7RIII is a hugely significant development.



not really. focus shift is far more your friend for high resolution macro, and it's not as if the A7RIII was the first to ever offer pixel shift so it's hardly "a significant development"


----------



## neurorx (Nov 21, 2017)

What is everyone's experience using the 5Ds/r for landscape or wildlife photography? Can you use it hand-held? Any reason to be concerned if you are using only L glass? 

I got the 5D IV and returned it as it wasn't a big enough jump over my 5D III. The extra DR was nice, but not enough to make me pay the original 3400. I wanted to see if the 5Dsr might be an attractive option for the outdoor photos. I don't use my camera for videos, but really do want higher resolution as I really value details in the photos I take. My taste, please no stones...


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 21, 2017)

Memdroid said:


> 5DS series was never advertised as a dedicated or capable video camera, but rather a big megapixel monster for still images. Still is actually and the successor probably will continue that trend.



These are opinions of what YOU think it should be. You may not be the majority, or the demographic that actually buys this camera the most! Canon usually makes evolutionary changes, not revolutionary changes so it would not be reasonable to expect differently about the next release.

I am considering a high res camera, and I would likely be thrilled to have the next iteration. Video? Not that important to me.

Just another perspective.

sek


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > I own a 1Dx, 1Dx mk2 and 5DsR...theres no bias...its honesty. Canon cant help itself from protecting the cinema line to make the camera that needs to be made. Also hows it gonna handicap the 5DsR mk2 to protect the 5D mk4. We all know the 5DsR wont be 4k60p...but it should be and not at 800mbps. Will it have 4k hdmi out...probably not. Now I cant do 4k live streams. I dont want to switch. I hate the way the a9 feels in my hands and ive shot over 7,000 pics with it. I want DPAF but whats the point if I need to spend over 1,000 per hour of CFast2 4k60p. Im willing to live with GOOD ENOUGH video AF sony has now.
> ...



I agree. I didn't answer the poll question because there was no realistic answer I could agree with.

Scott


----------



## edoorn (Nov 21, 2017)

neurorx said:


> What is everyone's experience using the 5Ds/r for landscape or wildlife photography? Can you use it hand-held? Any reason to be concerned if you are using only L glass?
> 
> I got the 5D IV and returned it as it wasn't a big enough jump over my 5D III. The extra DR was nice, but not enough to make me pay the original 3400. I wanted to see if the 5Dsr might be an attractive option for the outdoor photos. I don't use my camera for videos, but really do want higher resolution as I really value details in the photos I take. My taste, please no stones...



I rented a 5ds for a week of wildlife shooting (mainly big cats) in the Mara last year. Ita not a very fast camera but those pixels, that’s amazing to have. 

Hand held can be done but I shot it off a bean bag a lot. Have a large print with cheetah’s now in the living room, taken with 100-400ii and converter and it looks great.

The 5d4 is really a great camera (much more improvements than just the dr) and I hope they will bring the tech from this cam to a 5ds II. Along with a tilt screen and hopefully some other surprises


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 21, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> The 5DSR Mark I hasn't really impressed me as a camera.
> Maybe its my version but the 5D III and 5D IV that I have are better in terms of image quality.
> It doesn't perform well as the ISO goes up.
> I was never blown away by its detail as I didn't think it ever showed any more detail than a 5D III.
> ...



What lenses are you using on the 5Dsr? That could make a huge difference in image quality.

Scott


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 21, 2017)

neurorx said:


> What is everyone's experience using the 5Ds/r for landscape or wildlife photography? Can you use it hand-held? Any reason to be concerned if you are using only L glass?
> 
> I got the 5D IV and returned it as it wasn't a big enough jump over my 5D III. The extra DR was nice, but not enough to make me pay the original 3400. I wanted to see if the 5Dsr might be an attractive option for the outdoor photos. I don't use my camera for videos, but really do want higher resolution as I really value details in the photos I take. My taste, please no stones...



Why would you not be able to use it handheld? Or with L glass? Are you referring to comments about is showing flaws in technique? 
If so, then understand one thing: even if you had a tera-zillion MP camera, the image quality will never be any more worse or have more flaws than with a 20MP, 50MP or a 100MP sensor (and by flaws I mean camera shake, subject movement, lens aberrations or diffusion). What does happen is that poor technique will inhibit realising the benefits of more pixels - a lot people look at an image 1:1 on the computer and say "this is soft! I need to use a tripod" but that is because at 1:1 you are looking at a larger image. 

Yes, the 5DSR will give more detail, but likely at the expense of dynamic range. There is no free lunch. In good light I would say use the 5DSR, in low light the 5DIV starts to pull ahead - you can downsample the 5DSR and get closer to the DR of the 5DIV (or the 5DIII), but it is all compromises. 
I find exactly the same thing with my 7D2 compared to 1Dx2, but then I got the 1Dx2 not for IQ but for AF compared to my 7D2 when shooting fast moving wildlife. It sounds like you will not have the same issues as I do.
I would say buy the 5DSR and have fun.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 21, 2017)

neurorx said:


> What is everyone's experience using the 5Ds/r for landscape or wildlife photography? Can you use it hand-held? Any reason to be concerned if you are using only L glass?
> 
> I got the 5D IV and returned it as it wasn't a big enough jump over my 5D III. The extra DR was nice, but not enough to make me pay the original 3400. I wanted to see if the 5Dsr might be an attractive option for the outdoor photos. I don't use my camera for videos, but really do want higher resolution as I really value details in the photos I take. My taste, please no stones...



I'm not expert on the questions, but with that said, the R would not be my first choice for low light, or wildlife that is moving. Depending on your lens and the lighting, you should be able to hand hold.
Landscape photography typically relies on tripods and filters (though not always), so I would imagine that this is how it would be used for landscape pics. The high resolution of this sensor screams for the best resolving lenses, so L lenses, especially newer releases would be ideal. If I misstate anything, I apologize.

Scott


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 21, 2017)

neurorx said:


> What is everyone's experience using the 5Ds/r for landscape or wildlife photography? Can you use it hand-held? Any reason to be concerned if you are using only L glass?
> 
> I got the 5D IV and returned it as it wasn't a big enough jump over my 5D III. The extra DR was nice, but not enough to make me pay the original 3400. I wanted to see if the 5Dsr might be an attractive option for the outdoor photos. I don't use my camera for videos, but really do want higher resolution as I really value details in the photos I take. My taste, please no stones...



My 5Ds hasn’t been on a tripod more than a couple of times. It is no problem at all to use it handheld. Actually, I use my 5Ds for street photography quite a lot, and it performs very well. 

I try to keep my shutter speed about 50% faster than I would do with my 1DXII, and that usually turns out good. If I need to use slower shutter speeds, I take a few extra shots, so that I can have more to choose from, and that will usually give me a good result.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 21, 2017)

AlanF said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > If only there were a leak to give me a reason not to buy the a7Riii
> ...



+1. 

I can't find the option for "It will only offer 80% as much as the competition but it will work reliably and seamlessly with my other gear and will sell really well" on this poll.

- A


----------



## Chris_BC (Nov 21, 2017)

neurorx said:


> What is everyone's experience using the 5Ds/r for landscape or wildlife photography? Can you use it hand-held? Any reason to be concerned if you are using only L glass?
> 
> I got the 5D IV and returned it as it wasn't a big enough jump over my 5D III. The extra DR was nice, but not enough to make me pay the original 3400. I wanted to see if the 5Dsr might be an attractive option for the outdoor photos. I don't use my camera for videos, but really do want higher resolution as I really value details in the photos I take. My taste, please no stones...



I use my 5DsR handheld much of the time. I also use a tripod at times. The same rules apply as with other cameras and shooting situations. The longer the exposure, the more likely you need a tripod. I use nothing but L glass, and newer versions when I can. When using IS lenses in bright light in particular, I'm going to say that a better lens is going to be much more important than using a tripod. Of course this will vary depending on how steady your hands are.

I had the 5D MkIII, and I can assure you that the 5DsR is a big jump in resolution and sharpness. I know this better than most as my monitor is the 43 inch Philips 4K model. If you're viewing on something 27 inches or smaller, you just aren't coming close to getting a true idea. Unless your face is about 10 inches away.... (BTW, viewing at 50% is pretty much the highest you want to go for a true assessment of sharpness. The rule about sampling rate being double the max you want to observe is still true, so I have no idea why people talk about pixel peeping at 100%.)

Some of my pictures viewed on the Philips literally look as if I'm looking out the window at the scene. I've always been after maximum sharpness, and the 5DsR delivers in spades. I was never happy with anything sharpness wise until I had the 5D MkIII, and even then I was hoping for even more. The 5DsR delivers, and it is excellent for landscapes handheld as long as you have the light. If you want to kick it up a notch and be able to stop down for greater depth of field as well, use the tripod and the mirror lockup.

As others have noted, the 5DsR is not a great low light camera compared to other recent options out there.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 21, 2017)

neurorx said:


> What is everyone's experience using the 5Ds/r for landscape or wildlife photography? Can you use it hand-held? Any reason to be concerned if you are using only L glass?



Just speaking to the lens question, as Uncle Rog shows here...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/

...a rising tide lifts all boats, _but better boats are lifted higher_. All lenses in his test (3 very good + 1 older/used/banged up) show a greater resolving power on the finer 50 MP canvas, but the quality of the lens dictates how much better it gets.

- A


----------



## Memdroid (Nov 22, 2017)

scottkinfw said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > 5DS series was never advertised as a dedicated or capable video camera, but rather a big megapixel monster for still images. Still is actually and the successor probably will continue that trend.
> ...




I think you misquoted or misread my post...
You basically said what I already posted.


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 22, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > For high-resolution macro photography the pixel shift feature in the A7RIII is a hugely significant development.
> ...



Focus shift is a simple but useful way of getting basic macro stacking for larger objects but doesn't work for smaller items where the focus shift is too coarse to be able to capture every layer needed. 

There you need to move the camera (or object) with precise accuracy using something like the Stackshot system. 

Now, if you combine this with pixel shift, and take a pixel shift combined image for every single point in your stack you'll take 4 times as many photos but you'll get better results.

Also. The other huge bonus with mirrorless cameras for this kind of work is being able to take photos with the shutter locked up. When you're doing 200+ shots to create a single image this is quite useful. Having said that, the Sony implementation so far isn't perfect, and Canon does seem to integrate better into remote control systems for example with support by Helicon Remote. But the A7RIII does seem like it would be a great camera for this kind of work IF the software support was better.


----------



## suburbia (Nov 22, 2017)

wonder the comparison with astro-photography

*The new Sony a7RIII camera still eats stars*

Read more: https://photorumors.com/2017/11/22/the-new-sony-a7riii-camera-still-eats-stars/#ixzz4zBQNRtOR


----------



## scyrene (Nov 22, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> I was never blown away by its detail as I didn't think it ever showed any more detail than a 5D III.



You may not think it does, but it does.



neurorx said:


> What is everyone's experience using the 5Ds/r for landscape or wildlife photography? Can you use it hand-held? Any reason to be concerned if you are using only L glass?



I have found the 5Ds essentially the same as the 5D3 in terms of what it can do (the slightly lower fps has never been an issue for *me*, although it's not ideal for BIF) - by which I mean it is not worse in any noticeable regard. It does require much more hard disk space, however. You can use it handheld, although for best pixel-level sharpness you need rather faster shutter speeds for the same conditions - it's not prohibitive by any means though. I have no complaints regarding image quality.


----------



## tron (Nov 22, 2017)

AlanF said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > If only there were a leak to give me a reason not to buy the a7Riii
> ...


+1000 Not a reasonable choice like what Neuro said: incremental update to a functional camera. And since the current camera is a very good camera I can only be sure what its successor will be.


----------



## Talys (Nov 22, 2017)

It's threads like this that make me wish this forum had a downvote/vote to hide feature, because the poll options are ridiculous and make assumptions, like:

1) The poll voter cares about 4k video, or video at all
2) The person thinks that A7RIII is a usable camera
3) The reader believes that the D850's sensor sophistication outweighs other Nikon system disadvantages

How about option #6 and #7?

[ ] "I have no idea what the 5DsR Mk2's features will be, and although I like reading about these things, I'm unlikely to buy a camera at this price point made by any manufacturer."

[ ] "I have no idea what the 5DSR Mk2's features will be, but I'm excited about a refreshed high-resolution Canon body and will seriously consider it as the specifics become published."


----------



## tron (Nov 22, 2017)

We basically need another option: "This is a stupid poll" ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 22, 2017)

Personally, I think the 5DS/R2 as a product asks a fundamental question of Canon: should they double down on detail or step towards more general purpose applications. They could go all in on resolution or they could walk towards the 'supercamera' concept of high res *and* higher fps, like the A7R3 and D850 have recently done.

Crudely: they could go 80 MP x 5 fps or they could go 50 MP x 8 fps. (Don't torture the numbers, I'm just painting a picture.) The former is 5D4 complimentary, while the latter could lower 5D4 sales unless a much higher price point is established.

Whichever way they go on the 5DS/R2, I'm presuming either model will have all the 5D4 improvements -- on-chip ADC, touch, DPAF, DPRAW, WiFi, NFC, etc.

But I'm _not_ positive it will get a tilty-flippy. I presume the 5D5 will finally get one, but perhaps the 5DS/R2 has had shared 5D4 frame / component assumptions baked into its business plan for some time.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Nov 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Personally, I think the 5DS/R2 as a product asks a fundamental question of Canon: should they double down on detail or step towards more general purpose applications. They could go all in on resolution or they could walk towards the 'supercamera' concept of high res *and* higher fps, like the A7R3 and D850 have recently done.
> 
> Crudely: they could go 80 MP x 5 fps or they could go 50 MP x 8 fps. (Don't torture the numbers, I'm just painting a picture.) The former is 5D4 complimentary, while the latter could lower 5D4 sales unless a much higher price point is established.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but I don't see the 5Ds series asking or answering any fundamental questions. The 5Ds series was created as a niche camera focused on the highest reasonable resolution at the time. Canon saw a market and filled it. 

To make it affordable, Canon created a Franken-camera using the 5DIII body and an apparently upscaled 70D sensor. 

I don't see the basic formula changing. 5DIV body with a sensor likely comparable to an upscaled 7DIII sensor -- which I expect will be different and better than the 80D, but will likely have a marginal increase in megapixel count.

If their market research shows that customers want to drop the AA filter (highly likely in my opinion) they may release just one version. 

Frame rate will be driven by the limits of the electronics-- it's at most a secondary consideration and not a driver of specs or purchases. Those who want a higher frame rate have plenty of other choices. 

In short, the 5Ds II will be a very solid upgrade with (as you said) "on-chip ADC, touch, DPAF, DPRAW, WiFi, NFC, etc." But, as far as answering any fundamental questions about the future emphasis of Canon's R&D, this is not the camera you are looking for.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 22, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I don't see the basic formula changing. 5DIV body with a sensor likely comparable to an upscaled 7DIII sensor -- which I expect will be different and better than the 80D, but will likely have a marginal increase in megapixel count.
> 
> If their market research shows that customers want to drop the AA filter (highly likely in my opinion) they may release just one version.
> 
> ...



Perhaps I'm not being clear. 

Will Canon re-segment their FF portfolio to go from:

Enthusiast / All-Around Pro / Niche High Detail

To:

Good / Better / Best

...like what the competition is doing? Will two competitive supercameras with bonkers throughput levels push Canon to follow suit?

- A


----------



## bholliman (Nov 23, 2017)

I can't answer the poll since none of the choices are close to my opinion, which is:

The 5Ds(R) II will be a nice upgrade to its excellent predecessor.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 23, 2017)

bholliman said:


> I can't answer the poll since none of the choices are close to my opinion, which is:
> 
> The 5Ds(R) will be a nice upgrade to its excellent predecessor.



Correct answer. +1


----------



## unfocused (Nov 23, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the basic formula changing. ...
> ...



I think you are being clear. It's just that I don't see what you are seeing. Canon already offers Good (6DII), Better (5DIV) and Best (1DxII). In addition, Canon has taken the "better" camera and made two different versions. One as a all-around version for pros, enthusiasts, semi-pros, etc., and one a specialized version for those who need or want the highest resolution possible. 

I think you are splitting hairs, by lumping Nikon and Sony into one type of market differentiation and Canon into another. 

If you are suggesting that there is room in Canon's lineup for something between either the 6D and 5D or between the 5D and 1Dx, that may be true. Although it seems to me that the space is pretty narrow. 

I see far more space below the 6DII than between any models. Yet, at the same time, while there may be space below the 6D, based on specifications, I'm not sure there is any space based on price -- especially as the 6DII settles in at $1,600 or below. Canon has cut the price by $300 (through a very generous instant rebate) which is consistent with the way Canon marketed the original 6D -- which was also considered overpriced at introduction, but quickly dropped in price. 

I think both Canon and Canon's customers may be perfectly happy to have a feature-rich full-frame camera that will soon go from being a disappointment to forum dwellers to an incredible bargain for people who actually buy cameras.


----------



## tomscott (Nov 23, 2017)

I for one am very excited about a MKII version full stop.

When it came out I was very skeptical, didn't need the MP, seemed too niche etc etc

In reality its a very usable camera in all applications and I dont think its that niche. I think add the MKIV body and features and the sensor tech with 50mp make it 6FPS and a little more responsive and it could be very close to a full all rounder. Great for landscape and studio work but very capable as a second camera for wedding events and portraiture. It could be a beast for wildlife, add a GPS it would be a great travel companion.

The issue for me for all the above but landscape and wildlife is the mp count is still a little prohibitive. I shoot around 2k of images at weddings and that on its own is around 50-70gb depending on the cameras I own. That would double then output too. If they could make an M raw around the 5DMKIV or 6DMKII file size with no compromises that would be awesome. Another cool idea is a crop mode to get more out of your lenses without cropping in post.

Asking far too much as that camera would make most of the range seem really niche.

Im not that interested in video but if they could add 1080 at 60 with DPAF that would be nice.


----------



## tron (Nov 23, 2017)

I just voted Dead on Arrival to help you move on to Sony 

However, I will gladly upgrade my 5DsR to Mk II when that is released


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 23, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> The 5DSR Mark I hasn't really impressed me as a camera.
> Maybe its my version but the 5D III and 5D IV that I have are better in terms of image quality.
> It doesn't perform well as the ISO goes up.
> I was never blown away by its detail as I didn't think it ever showed any more detail than a 5D III.
> ...


I could not disagree more. 
Ive taken thousands of shots with my 5DS mainly in the studio shooting portraits but also landscapes and even on a safari. One area it could do with improvement is low ISO no question but making a statement you cannot see differences between the 5D MKIII or even the 5D IV in details etc. so factually incorrect. The camera has consistently impressed in this area and as I shoot predominately at ISO 100 with a 160 shutter speed using strobes both the level of keepers, detail & sharpness have been a notch above the 5D MKIV not to say that camera is bad but to point out 50MP really does give great results when you nail exposure & focusing. 

Would I buy a MKII if it improved over the MK1? In a heartbeat.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 26, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DSR Mark I hasn't really impressed me as a camera.
> ...


I've taken 10's of thousands of photographs with a 5DSR and other than perfect conditions eg ISO 100 it doesn't perform nearly as well as a 5DIII or a 5DIV. It performs best in a studio but then most gear does. It's not a bad camera but not worth the file size afterwards. As always I may have a bad copy but I'm not the first to be not fully supportive of it as a camera. If I had no camera and was buying a full frame I'd get the 5DIV first in a heartbeat.


----------



## Frodo (Nov 27, 2017)

Hi Hector

I am surprised about your comments that the 5DsR has poorer image quality than the 5DIII and 5DIV. I've never owned one of those cameras but I had a 5DII and now have a 6D (and the 6D is similar to the 5DIII). Image quality has a range of dimensions. Most commonly discussed is resolution. You say "I was never blown away by its detail as I didn't think it ever showed any more detail than a 5D III.". I've compared my 6D to my 5DsR. The increase in resolution is stunning. At my first comparison I thought (incorrectly) I had misfocused the 6D! The increase in resolution with good lenses is about in proportion to the increase in linear dimensions. Even with my 24-105/4, the differences are dramatic. 

The next aspect is DR. In initial testing, the DR seems similar to the 6D when downsampled to similar size files. I do like the soft noise that the 5DsR produces in shadows - no blotches or banding so far, but this is with limited testing. Hi ISO noise? I use the 6D for landscape astrophotography and will soon see how well the 5DsR performs. 

I agree that at the pixel level, the other cameras might be better, but when downsampled to similar sizes, the 5DsR is better than the 6D and I assume the 5DIII. 

In terms of color tonality, I've shot one wedding and one event with the 5DsR and the images are fabulous.

I agree a little more DR would be nice. My biggest issue is that LR conversion of mRaw files is poor, because you usually don't need all 50MP. But when you do, its nice to have.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 27, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



Yes I'm with you here. When the 5DSR was announced I looked at the spec and thought that the 5DIII/IV was a far more versatile camera. I don't need that silly high MP and it'll just put a huge strain on my workflow, storage and shooting requirement. A camera with that kind of resolution will need a tripod for most of the time, the reciprocal shutter speed rule breaks down and it's it's pretty clear that it'll be an iso 100 only camera (compared to a mk4). 
I figured that Canon was forced to make this camera to appease the forum fan boys who have a hunger for maxxed out MP...but hey it's not 2005 any more and 25-30mp is more than adequate. 
While I appreciate that it's an amazing niche camera and it's a technical marvel, I do question it's application as a photographic tool. In most uses a mk4 is a wiser choice. 
For my shooting (a lot of portraits, weddings and fair bit of landscape and a little bit of wildlife) I just don't need noisy large files. So I'm happy with the regular 5D series cameras.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > brianftpc said:
> ...



^^^ This....and...



bholliman said:


> I can't answer the poll since none of the choices are close to my opinion, which is:
> 
> The 5Ds(R) II will be a nice upgrade to its excellent predecessor.



^^^^This....

The 5Ds II will be a very capable, methodical upgrade. As others have said, on-chip conversion, Wi-Fi, gps, lower light AF (-3 or 4 EV), a few more MP (24 APS-C sensors scaled up is 62.5 MP), latest dual digic 7, 5DIV form factor, 6 fps, DPAF, and some video features (4K at 30 fps, FHD at 60 fps, etc). In short, some improvements, but mostly a 5DIV with a larger sensor.

If that does not interest you, buy the Sony. But people seem to really like the 5DsR and I am sure the Mk II will be better.

As for me, my 5DIII took amazing pictures. And a few test runs with the 5DIV and I am very happy with the upgrade (mostly AF and Wi-Fi at this point). I've played with Sony's in stores and did not come away happy. Plus, when I mock assemble my entire kit, Canon wins hands down. But, to each their own.


----------



## tron (Nov 27, 2017)

docsmith said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


+1 on the features. Down to earth and useful. The only thing is that with these features Canon can release it today (OK I mean Q1, Q2 2018). Were to wait a little longer, I would expect them to have an even newer digic and make it 7fps. In all cases they could increase buffer a little.


----------



## Talys (Nov 27, 2017)

docsmith said:


> If that does not interest you, buy the Sony. But people seem to really like the 5DsR and I am sure the Mk II will be better.
> 
> As for me, my 5DIII took amazing pictures. And a few test runs with the 5DIV and I am very happy with the upgrade (mostly AF and Wi-Fi at this point). I've played with Sony's in stores and did not come away happy. Plus, when I mock assemble my entire kit, Canon wins hands down. But, to each their own.



This. I don't know why people can't just go buy their really awesome techno gizmo be happy, and stop griping about how Canon is going to go out of business. I have played with 5DSRII in the field and 5DSRIII in the store, and neither come close to making me happy or convincing me to pull the trigger on what would be a very expensive system that trades a lot of usability and built-like-a-tank ruggedness for a better sensor and a big bag of tricks that is mostly not very useful to me. 

The price of glass matters to me too; the Sony system is awesomely _expensive_ if you want their top-end zooms -- nearly twice the price compared to Canon sale/street prices on popular lenses like 70-200/2.8 or 100-400, and nearly four times the price as third party lenses for Canon; plus, often, their second-tier alternatives are poor.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 27, 2017)

brianftpc said:


> I own a 1Dx, 1Dx mk2 and 5DsR...theres no bias...its honesty. Canon cant help itself from protecting the cinema line to make the camera that needs to be made. Also hows it gonna handicap the 5DsR mk2 to protect the 5D mk4. We all know the 5DsR wont be 4k60p...but it should be and not at 800mbps. Will it have 4k hdmi out...probably not. Now I cant do 4k live streams. I dont want to switch. I hate the way the a9 feels in my hands and ive shot over 7,000 pics with it. I want DPAF but whats the point if I need to spend over 1,000 per hour of CFast2 4k60p. Im willing to live with GOOD ENOUGH video AF sony has now.
> 
> Id pay 6,000 for a 5DsR mk2 with low light equal to the a7r iii, 4k 60p, IBIS, 4k hdmi out, 8-10 fps, 50 RAW frame buffer uncompressed, DPAF, wifi. Thats all very realistic. If I saw a leak that it was coming out next summer Id wait for it unless the A7Siii pulled me away from the C200.
> 
> ...



The whole premise that Canon is protecting the Cinema line is flawed, as is the premise that Canon will be protecting the 5D mark IV from it. Canon builds Cameras to reach a particular market. Heck! maybe Canon is protecting the 5DSr from the 5D mark IV. See how that works? It's just silly.

The camera isn't what it should be? Yeah, people want $10,000 cameras at powershot prices. :


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 27, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DSR Mark I hasn't really impressed me as a camera.
> ...



Nifty fifty. :


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 27, 2017)

JoSto said:


> Such a nonsense. But I have to congratulate the marketing departments of the camera companies. They are so successful by telling people that their gear is not good enough. Youtube also has a significant share in this stupidity.
> 
> If you know what you are doing there is zero possibility that there is a picture you cant take because you have "just" a 5dmk4 or a 1DXmk2. I still have a original 1DX and all my big prints look amazing. Just 18 MPix. More than enough.



I've never had or seen a marketing department tell me that my gear isn't good enough. I decide that. People who let marketing depts. make decisions for them are not thinking and and fit into the "drone" category. If Canon can take their money, then they deserve to have it taken.


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> neurorx said:
> 
> 
> > What is everyone's experience using the 5Ds/r for landscape or wildlife photography? Can you use it hand-held? Any reason to be concerned if you are using only L glass?
> ...



This part got a giggle out of me. If only the 5DSr could take EF-S lenses. 

"Any reason to be concerned if you are using only L glass?"


----------



## Talys (Nov 27, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> JoSto said:
> 
> 
> > Such a nonsense. But I have to congratulate the marketing departments of the camera companies. They are so successful by telling people that their gear is not good enough. Youtube also has a significant share in this stupidity.
> ...



Every camera company does it, indirectly, in the same way that car manufacturers and smartphone makers tell you that your current stuff isn't good enough.

First, they describe the new model as the best version ever, the pinnacle of technology and back it up with a bunch of 3 and 4 letter acronyms. Because your current gear doesn't have the latest alphabet soup, it's inferior to the latest model.

Second, they tease you with amazing samples that most people dream of. For cars, it's lifestyle, like driving in picturesque rugged outdoors or racing down a desert stretch, or a beautiful woman throwing her hair in the wind. For cameras, it's a perfect shot of a photographer happily taking photos from a kayak in the perfect lake (seen the latest Canon Best in Glass ads in the movies?). For a cell phone, it's visualizing orcas or a perfectly fit, beautiful person doing something fun or active.

In common is that what's holding you back is your stuff. Buy the latest stuff and this lifestyle and happiness can be yours too! Capture these perfect droplets of water and swooping eagles with just a snap of the shutter!

But, I mean, I don't fault them for it. They are aspirational ads, and if you fall for shiny new car = meet random beautiful woman while driving down the road or buy new camera = perfect photos from perfect outdoor adventures, you should probably be prepared for disappointment


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 28, 2017)

Talys said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > JoSto said:
> ...



Well, I guess I see it as showing us what the new product offers. When Canon shows a new Camera or lens I don't feel that what I have is inferior and don't feel that is what Canon is trying to do. If I think my "gear" is now inferior because of something new... that's my problem. My gear might very well be inferior to something new. That's the point of a new product... to make something better. 

There are people posting here often saying stuff that came out last year or even getting ready to come out are somehow obsolete already. The great thing about photography is that it is usually the photographer who is inferior to his gear.

Example: In many ways the 5D mark III is inferior to the Mark IV. But, I decide to wait on the Mark V.

While the point of marketing is to entice people to buy, I don't see it as a nefarious act by marketing. Afterall, without marketing we wouldn't know that many things even existed. 

"They are so successful by telling people that their gear is not good enough."

I still must disagree with that statement. Canon never tells me that. They just point out the features of the new product. The 5D mark III is good enough for me, but I'll still buy a Mark V. Why? Because my Mark III will probably be about 7 years old and I'll want something new. It isn't that I'll think it isn't good enough.

My 1968 Ford Fairlane GT was plenty good enough. Got me from A-B just fine. It was a tool and worked very well. I wanted newer tech. That's all.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 28, 2017)

I got a 6D2 almost two months ago. I have been more than pleased with the purchase, and more importantly, with the pictures and video I have shot in that time. I'm still learning how to do things, and learning things I can do that I didn't know about before. The 24-105 STM lens has been a good addition to my arsenal. The weak point in my gear is the 75-300mm zoom as the only lens longer than the 105. I had made surprisingly good eclipse pictures with it on my T3i, so it is not a piece of junk, just disappointing relative to everything else I use, especially in terms of CA. Maybe I'll be able to replace it some time next year.

The main insight that I have from this process that I think is relevant to this discussion is my realization that I never really learned to exploit all the potential of the T3i. Although I bought two books on that camera model, I think I have already spent more time reading the extended 6D2 manual than in did over 5 or 6 years reading about the T3i. It helps that I have the PDF manual on my iPad, so it is handy leisure reading between doing other things. And obviously new toys get the most attention.

I will be doing a fair amount of travel over the holidays, and the DSLRs will stay home, and I'll be shooting with my pocketable G7X II. I've been quite pleased with the results from it. It will be interesting to see what I miss having after shooting FF with a fair number of features.


----------



## tron (Nov 28, 2017)

If I were to guess: T7/1400D: first half of 2018, 7DIII : second half of 2018 (sorry for being conservative/realistic) 5DsR II: 2019. Of course I would welcome an earlier upgrade.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 3, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Yes I'm with you here. When the 5DSR was announced I looked at the spec and thought that the 5DIII/IV was a far more versatile camera. I don't need that silly high MP and it'll just put a huge strain on my workflow, storage and shooting requirement.
> 
> While I appreciate that it's an amazing niche camera and it's a technical marvel, I do question it's application as a photographic tool.
> 
> I just don't need noisy large files. So I'm happy with the regular 5D series cameras.



I'm not sure this is the right way to look at it. File storage is cheap. Computer processing is not, but then as most likely a raw shooter with decent software you can just convert your CR2 files to the same size as your 22 mp 5DIII or whatever, so processing is not slowed down at all. The excessively high mp goes towards reducing the colour definition limitations of the Bayer array effect, so theoretically you gain from interpolating the larger file down, and still have the option of the full size file if you should ever want it. Likewise the reduction reduces noise down to the same levels as those cameras of equal vintage and mp that you are reducing to. The only drawback is the speed of the camera really, which may or may not be important. If you're a jpeg shooter then just use a smaller jpeg setting !


----------



## jasonwei (Dec 3, 2017)

Hope it will come out earlier.


----------



## Talys (Dec 3, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> "They are so successful by telling people that their gear is not good enough."
> 
> I still must disagree with that statement. Canon never tells me that. They just point out the features of the new product. The 5D mark III is good enough for me, but I'll still buy a Mark V. Why? Because my Mark III will probably be about 7 years old and I'll want something new. It isn't that I'll think it isn't good enough.
> 
> My 1968 Ford Fairlane GT was plenty good enough. Got me from A-B just fine. It was a tool and worked very well. I wanted newer tech. That's all.



Fair enough  

It's just funny that you say it, because I've been seeing Canon ads in the movies quite often recently -- and being someone who loves wildlife/nature photography, I sure do wish I could take shots like that  However, I fully understand that it has absolutely nothing to do with me owning a 6DII rather than the 5DIV the guy has in the video, hehehe.


----------



## Mancubus (Dec 3, 2017)

Here is how to make a successful 5DSR2:

- Take a Canon 5D4
- Get rid of the damn AA filter
- Bump the resolution to 50+ MP
- Give it a medium (~30MP) and a small (~20MP) RAW file option that uses the sensor in a clever way getting more light on each pixel instead of just resizing a 50MP file
- Update anything that is over 10 years old (like the 4K codec and the SD card)
- Don't f**k up anything that you're not supposed to (such as giving it a s**t DR like the 6D2)

Do this and I'd gladly pay 4000usd for it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 3, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Here is how to make a successful 5DSR2:
> 
> 
> - Give it a medium (~30MP) and a small (~20MP) RAW file option that *uses the sensor in a clever way getting more light on each pixel *instead of just resizing a 50MP file
> ...



You might as well have said you’d pay 40,000USD for it.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 3, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Here is how to make a successful 5DSR2:
> 
> - Get rid of the damn AA filter...



I thought that in time the "r" would have a disproportionately higher used value to the plain "s", in a similar way to what happened with the Nikon D800, and so the extra £200 spent on a new "r" would be money well spent in the long term. However here in the U.K. it seems that on the used market the "s" is making the same or even more money. Certainly there are a lot less "s" ones for sale.

So I guess that there are many out there who would disagree about leaving the "damn" AA filter out 

Certainly for myself I went for the 5Ds and had to go to more lengths to get one. My local pro dealer has them on back order........


----------



## Mancubus (Dec 5, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > Here is how to make a successful 5DSR2:
> ...




Why is that? It doesn't seem impossible, just a way of getting more light (using more sensor area) per pixel when not using the camera in the maximum megapixel setting. 

To my understanding, that would allow some noise level similar to a 1DX Mark II (even less noise if technology improves). Much better than having the camera just resizing what would be a regular 50+ MP file.


----------



## midluk (Dec 5, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> Why is that? It doesn't seem impossible, just a way of getting more light (using more sensor area) per pixel when not using the camera in the maximum megapixel setting.
> 
> To my understanding, that would allow some noise level similar to a 1DX Mark II (even less noise if technology improves). Much better than having the camera just resizing what would be a regular 50+ MP file.


Can you specify what you mean by "resizing"?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 6, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Mancubus said:
> ...



But it is impossible. Sensor area is a fixed quantity and you can’t get more of it by using fewer pixels. You can bin pixels, but they don’t benefit from additional light.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 6, 2017)

The current 5Ds (sr) will take a remarkable amount of over-exposure at low ISO without loss of saturation / colour accuracy. If less noise is your goal just over-expose and reduce in post.


----------



## Mancubus (Dec 6, 2017)

midluk said:


> Can you specify what you mean by "resizing"?



Taking a photo normally (full resolution), and then the camera processes it to create a smaller file with just less pixels.




3kramd5 said:


> But it is impossible. Sensor area is a fixed quantity and you can’t get more of it by using fewer pixels. You can bin pixels, but they don’t benefit from additional light.



The total sensor area is constant, but when you reduce the number of pixels on the raw file, each pixel will have more area to obtain information from.


----------



## traveller (Dec 6, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> The current 5Ds (sr) will take a remarkable amount of over-exposure at low ISO without loss of saturation / colour accuracy. If less noise is your goal just over-expose and reduce in post.



Doesn’t this just mean that the histogram is very inaccurate in RAW and the meter underexposes? I’m not criticising Canon alone, just about every camera (other than the Phase One XF with the latest IQ3 backs) does the same. 

On my 5D3, I set the “Neutral” picture style, then customise it by lowering the contrast to minimum and bumping up the sharpness a little (4, -4, 0, 0). I find this makes the histogram closer to the RAW file, while still allowing focus evaluation on the rear screen. It has zero effect on the file imported into Lightroom/ACR (I can’t speak for other RAW converters).


----------



## sanj (Dec 6, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> The current 5Ds (sr) will take a remarkable amount of over-exposure at low ISO without loss of saturation / colour accuracy. If less noise is your goal just over-expose and reduce in post.



This, to ME sounds like the old film days mentality. I used to 1/4 over expose 400 plus ISO film regularly. I doubt if this is good idea today.


----------



## tron (Dec 6, 2017)

If you must overexpose you have to do it within reason because blown highlights cannot be recovered and since the histogram can be made approximate but not exact to raw histogram I would suggest to not only overexpose (a little) but to bracket as well to be on the safe side.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 6, 2017)

Mancubus said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > Can you specify what you mean by "resizing"?
> ...



A raw file doesn’t have pixels, it just has data. Since you started off by saying to use “the sensor in a clever way getting more light on each pixel,” I thought you were discussing physical pixels.

It sounds like what you are describing is binning: https://web.stanford.edu/group/vista/cgi-bin/wiki/index.php/Pixel_Binning


----------



## Mancubus (Dec 6, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> It sounds like what you are describing is binning: https://web.stanford.edu/group/vista/cgi-bin/wiki/index.php/Pixel_Binning



Exactly! I didn't know the word but that's what I meant. This is what I want the 5DSR2 to do and get small/medium raw files that are better than simply resizing a full sized one.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 6, 2017)

sanj said:


> This, to ME sounds like the old film days mentality. I used to 1/4 over expose 400 plus ISO film regularly. I doubt if this is good idea today.



As I recall, it was better to overexpose negative film a bit, and to underexpose slide film a bit. One might argue that just meant giving each a proper exposure.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 6, 2017)

traveller said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The current 5Ds (sr) will take a remarkable amount of over-exposure at low ISO without loss of saturation / colour accuracy. If less noise is your goal just over-expose and reduce in post.
> ...



Not that the meter is inaccurate. Histogram yes, and I too set “ neutral” , very flat for preview. Slight over exposure just floods the pixels a little more, and as long as you don’t overdo it then reduction in post reduces noise. So you’re not actually using the “correct” exposure. Same with negative film in the old days, in fact even now with modern emulsions like Portra it’s virtually impossible to over expose it. Transparencies over exposed where awful and thin though I’m not sure if after scanning you’d pull the colours back - all my transparencies are under exposed if anything !


----------



## traveller (Dec 7, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



If, when shooting in RAW, you call reliably pull back a full stop of highlights without losing colour information from multiple channels clipping, then the correct RAW exposure was one full stop more than the meter suggested. The camera makers have not really adjusted their meter programming from the days when they had to account for people shooting films with different exposure latitudes (actually, they probably _could_ have fitted a mode switch back then: by the end, exposure latitude was even DX encoded on 35mm film canisters!). 

How long have people been asking for an "expose to the right" metering mode, perhaps with user specifiable maximum percentage (all) channel clipping thresholds? It's my (personal) highest priority request to Canon: give users customisation controls on the camera metering, like already exist for the AF system. I would love Canon to include an ETTR meter mode that allows me to specify how much of the frame is allowed to clip and also to customise how much priority the meter gives to the active AF point. 

With regard to film comparisons, digital is far more like slide film with very sharp overexposure clipping. Digital achieves more of what we now call 'dynamic range' by having even greater shadow recovery potential than slide film (even on older Canon sensors), not by having vastly more headroom in the highlights. In signal:noise ratio terms, both positive (slide) film and digital (even more so) have a better SNR overall than negative film, especially so in the shadow areas, but negative film has a more gradual drop off in the SNR in the highlights:

http://clarkvision.com/articles/exposure_latitude-1/
http://clarkvision.com/articles/digital.signal.to.noise/

Effectively, this means that the exposure strategy for both digital and positive film is the same: expose for the highlights. The difficulty is judging where the highlight clipping point is, based upon the limited information from the camera. You either use a spot meter and mathematics, underexpose "for safety" (not ideal), or with digital -use the information provided by the histogram. The issue with most current digital cameras is that the meter and histogram are both based upon the correct jpeg exposure. 

RAW headroom comes as a result of the demosaicing of the bayer array data: i.e. in the same way that generating a full-res RGB image relies on the "educated guesswork" of the RAW converter's demosaicing algorithm, so the data in a fully saturated 'pixel' can be reconstructed by extrapolating its value based upon the values of the adjacent non-clipped 'pixels'. Obviously, once the adjacent 'pixels' are also clipped there is no way to accurately "guess" the colour, which gives us the upper limit of RAW headroom. The camera companies seem very reluctant to give advanced users the tools they need to extract optimum exposure from their cameras. We can use RawDigger to establish the general relationship between our camera's meter/histogram and the actual RAW values, but it would be good if we could access more of this sort of data _at the time of shooting_. Perhaps the camera companies feel that it is easier just to provide bracketing modes, but this doesn't help with moving subjects.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 7, 2017)

traveller said:


> ...
> The issue with most current digital cameras is that the meter and histogram are both based upon the correct jpeg exposure.
> 
> RAW headroom comes as a result of the demosaicing of the bayer array data: i.e. in the same way that generating a full-res RGB image relies on the "educated guesswork" of the RAW converter's demosaicing algorithm, so the data in a fully saturated 'pixel' can be reconstructed by extrapolating its value based upon the values of the adjacent non-clipped 'pixels'. Obviously, once the adjacent 'pixels' are also clipped there is no way to accurately "guess" the colour, which gives us the upper limit of RAW headroom. The camera companies seem very reluctant to give advanced users the tools they need to extract optimum exposure from their cameras. We can use RawDigger to establish the general relationship between our camera's meter/histogram and the actual RAW values, but it would be good if we could access more of this sort of data _at the time of shooting_. Perhaps the camera companies feel that it is easier just to provide bracketing modes, but this doesn't help with moving subjects.



I sometimes wonder if we are getting to the point where the technology makes things possible and people are demanding functionality for no other reason than in theory they can do it. And comments like 'if you thought that way they would not have developed AF' type of argument. 

Bracket some shots, compare the raw and the histogram and take it from there. I know on my 7D2 I can take the jpeg histogram and add a stop - does it really matter if you are 1/3 of a stop more'accurate' for ETTR? In a landscape shot the perfect light is so fleeting you will not have time to take a test under the ideal lighting, wait for the camera to crunch the raw histogram and adjust the settings. 
Add to this that the histogram depends on the white balance you use so a raw histogram can actually be misleading and blow colour channels if you try too hard to get as far ETTR as possible. So you end up being conservative and no more accurate than if you take 'jpeg histogram +1 stop'.

I have read several comments by pros saying that the dynamic range of any DSLR is now so good it makes ETTR almost redundant. 

And just to be cheeky: given the profound claims about the usability of a 5-stop push to an underexposed image, and the wonderful linearity of new sensors, why on earth are people worrying about the histogram anyways?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 7, 2017)

traveller said:


> If, when shooting in RAW, you call reliably pull back a full stop of highlights without losing colour information from multiple channels clipping, then the correct RAW exposure was one full stop more than the meter suggested.



That would only be a true statement if the metering program was ETTR, but it isn’t. 

Rather than auto-ETTR, I’d just like a raw histogram in live view.



Mikehit said:


> I have read several comments by pros saying that the dynamic range of any DSLR is now so good it makes ETTR almost redundant.
> 
> And just to be cheeky: given the profound claims about the usability of a 5-stop push to an underexposed image, and the wonderful linearity of new sensors, why on earth are people worrying about the histogram anyways?



Just to be pedantic: because the ability to make a shadow brighter without introducing overpowering noise doesn’t reveal detailed in that shadow which weren’t recorded. The signal is still the signal. Exposing to the extreme end of saturation allows maximum signal and thus detail to be recorded.


----------



## RGF (Dec 7, 2017)

It seems that after some problems with the 1D Mark 2 or 3 (?) Canon has been a lot more cautious about introducing new equipment, especially bodies. It seems to me that they want to avoid negative market reaction. But then again, given how (pick your term, detailed oriented users, hyper-critical bunch of whiners) we are, they seems to slow with new introductions. The 5Ds/R was the first "breakthrough" in a while.


----------



## traveller (Dec 7, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Exactly, why do we need autofocus, when we can just take a few shots at different distances and check the rear screen to see which is best? 

I know that you were being tongue in cheek, but in all seriousness those 5 stop shadow pushes are often still not enough for contre-jour shots, especially when you haven’t properly ETTR’d the exposure, or you are much above base ISO. That being said, I find myself pushing the exposure to the right less often with my Fuji than with my Canon, at low ISO anyway.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 7, 2017)

Several thoughts:

The histogram you see on the screen is based on the theoretical resultant JPEG rather than the linear RAW file, so it is difficult to judge how to adjust the exposure, particularly ETTR, from that readout. In a very low contrast situation, though, you can probably get away with it. I think there is a lot of value in trying things and gaining experience, the more of which you have with your particular camera, the better your judgment of what you can get away with should become.

I have read that ETTR is pointless except at base ISO. That might not be quite literally true for near-base settings, but maybe it is. Anyhow, if ETTR means you are doubling the ISO and quintupling the noise, then you've introduced a lot more problems than you've solved.

My experience has been that if there is any information at all in any channel of the brightest parts of the scene, then the Highlights slider in ACR (and presumably the same in LR) does a good job faking details in the other channels. The main need I've had for this, as I recall, is when I want some detail in clouds. Moving the slider way to the left can make the sky look downright threatening sometimes, which is vastly beyond the tweaking I need. So for my purposes, highlight recovery usually works better than boosting the shadows more than one stop. I'm usually not interested in bringing out the spider webs in the dark corners for interiors, and indeed I find too much attention to insignificant detail to be more of a distraction in the picture. I do however like to have detail in windows, particularly stained glass, while giving a good view of architectural details. The Highlights slider is usually not sufficient for that, for me anyway, so I shoot separate exposures for the windows and merge, such as in this picture of a chapel in Edinburgh, shot with my G7X II. I preferred the as-shot convergence over a corrected perspective. My goal is usually to make the picture look like what I saw when I was there. This printed up nicely on 13" x 19" paper, and I plan to frame it to hang in my hallway gallery when I get around to it.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 7, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> Just to be pedantic: because the ability to make a shadow brighter without introducing overpowering noise doesn’t reveal detailed in that shadow which weren’t recorded. The signal is still the signal. Exposing to the extreme end of saturation allows maximum signal and thus detail to be recorded.


My point was, the difference between jpeg histogram + 1 stop (or whatever you think is right) it surely good enough. Is the 1/3 stop (or whatever it is) by using a raw histogram really going to make or break an image?


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 7, 2017)

traveller said:


> I know that you were being tongue in cheek, but in all seriousness those 5 stop shadow pushes are often still not enough for contre-jour shots, especially when you haven’t properly ETTR’d the exposure, or you are much above base ISO. That being said, I find myself pushing the exposure to the right less often with my Fuji than with my Canon, at low ISO anyway.



But if its contre jour even the raw histogram becomes meaningless because the whole idea of contre jour is that the highlights blow out to the point that even a raw histogram will not tell you if the part you are interested in is within the dynamic range of the histogram.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be pedantic: because the ability to make a shadow brighter without introducing overpowering noise doesn’t reveal detailed in that shadow which weren’t recorded. The signal is still the signal. Exposing to the extreme end of saturation allows maximum signal and thus detail to be recorded.
> ...



Maybe, maybe not, but why not make it possible to truly ETTR without trial and error? 

Here’s another one: let me dial in exposure time on a touch screen rather, at let me exceed 30 seconds without an extra device.


----------



## RGF (Dec 10, 2017)

Wonder if the Nikon D850 will put enough pressure on Canon to up their game.

They are already in a dead heat with Nikon D5 vs 1DxM2 (some could argue one or other is winner but IMO these camera are very close in features)

The 5DM4 is a great camera, I think unchallenged by the Nikon

Nikon's D850, though lower in MP, than the 5Ds/sR offers a lot of advantages of the 5Ds.
It would be nice is Canon could match the D850 in areas other than MP which it has a clear lead.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Dec 19, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Several thoughts:
> 
> The histogram you see on the screen is based on the theoretical resultant JPEG rather than the linear RAW file, so it is difficult to judge how to adjust the exposure, particularly ETTR, from that readout. In a very low contrast situation, though, you can probably get away with it. I think there is a lot of value in trying things and gaining experience, the more of which you have with your particular camera, the better your judgment of what you can get away with should become.
> 
> ...



Once you've been shooting Canon for sometime you understand it has highlight detail more than shadow and you expose with that in mind. I do, and I too recover.

I have been shooting Canon for about 10 years, currently using the 5Dm3 and just a year or so ago I purchased the A7RII and a Metabones adapter for my Canon lenses. I also shoor Phase One MF digibacks.

I have to say I love this Sony sensor without AA filter. 
I have to say I hate this Sony smartphone.

Now if Sony ironed out the delay and lag in Mode changes, and startup time, and some of the glitchy behavior I have had (And it took a LONG time for them to make a firmware update to address a number of glitches), I would say Canon has their plate full to meet or beat the A7R3. They took care of the battery, so...

I will say the mechanical reliability is my strongest pull towards Canon.
The rest falls mostly on what you shoot.
Product: its not hard to pick the mirrorless Sony or a Phase One. which is what I shoot.
Landscape/Architectural: its not hard to pick the Sony again.
Events: This is Canon reliability, and a slight risky path for Sony shooters.
Portraits: Either one would be fine
Sports: Either one or Sony perhaps.
mirrorless makes focus MUCH nicer for the strong points above.

The sensor needs all AA removed, not a effect. It gives more 3D dimension and sharpness. Also, the way the Sony renders is really nice. I don't know if Sony makes the MFormat sensors that Hasselblad and Phase One use in their 50mpixel backs, as they ARE Sony sensors, and I do like they way the images expose.
But, its often left to indoor still use sometimes, and takes a back seat on event shoots.


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 21, 2017)

RGF said:


> Wonder if the Nikon D850 will put enough pressure on Canon to up their game.
> 
> They are already in a dead heat with Nikon D5 vs 1DxM2 (some could argue one or other is winner but IMO these camera are very close in features)
> 
> ...



Do you mean the Canon 5dmk4 is unchallenged by the Nikon D850, or that the Canon doesn't challenge the Nikon?


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 21, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder if the Nikon D850 will put enough pressure on Canon to up their game.
> ...



I guess he's meaning the 5Ds doesn't equal the D850.

My advice to anyone looking at the current 5 series cameras; don't disregard the 5Ds because of the "old tech" off-sensor ADC, and the internet emphasis on spec sheet. I was kinda going to go for the 5DIV although I don't need speed, either in terms of ISO or shutter rate, until I was at a big wedding shot by a quite well known photographer. She rated the 5DsR above the 5DIV and she was using both. I tried a 5Ds ( I want the AA filter) and bought one.


----------



## amorse (Dec 21, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I always assumed they kept maximum exposure time to 30 seconds and required bulb mode beyond that to ensure that people couldn't lock up the camera for more than 30 seconds. I've accidentally messed up 30 second exposures in the past and then had to wait for the camera to finish before I could fix whatever error I made and try again. I can only imagine my frustration if I did that on a 5 minute exposure! At least with bulb, you have to actively confirm that you want the camera to continue exposing the scene. Kind of a nuisance to be sure, but I can understand the decision.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 21, 2017)

amorse said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Could be, but you can always just turn it off rather than wait it out.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 21, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder if the Nikon D850 will put enough pressure on Canon to up their game.
> ...



If I understand the point correctly, I actually agree. The D850, because of the high MP count, now more closely matches the 5DsR and not the 5DIV. Which is odd, as I think some consider the 5Ds (R) to be "niche" cameras due to their high MP count. But Nikon just planted their #2 camera just south of that "niche."

Currently, I would put the D750 as below the 5DIV, which leaves the 5DIV unmatched or unchallenged. I am not sure what the replacment to the D750 will be (D760?), but I can see Nikon bumping it up to be more comparable to the 5DIV.

Then, Nikon and Canon would match up, or, likely more precisely, would have cameras targeting similar markets (_italics mean yet to be released_):

1DxII vs D5
_5Ds (R) II_ vs D850
5DIV vs _D750 II_
6DII vs D610
7DII vs D500
etc


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 21, 2017)

docsmith said:


> Currently, I would put the D750 as below the 5DIV, which leaves the 5DIV unmatched or unchallenged. I am not sure what the replacment to the D750 will be (D760?), but I can see Nikon bumping it up to be more comparable to the 5DIV.



I expect a D760 resolution bump to 30-36 MP, which squarely puts it in the 'better' bucket of their traditional good/better/best lineup. And again, 'better' will lineup competitively with one of Canon's two 'pro / high end' FF rigs with the 5D# line.

Consider: Nikon *literally* could put the 36 MP D810 sensor into a new D760 and give it the same 7/9 fps setup of the D850, offer it for $2299 and sell it directly and effectively in the 5D4 market slot. That sensor remains a formidably effective one some three years out, and 36x7 / 36x9 + tilty-flippy (something the 5D4 lacks) + a mid-level price would be a very strong value, IMHO.

And then there's the D610 line which fell off of the earth in recent memory. Bold prediction: Nikon hasn't given up on the 'good'/'entry FF' market segment, and whatever they bring to the table there in 2018 will have an on-chip sensor to thumb its nose at 6D2 owners. :

- A


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 21, 2017)

docsmith said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



I get what you mean with the 5dmk4 not having a direct competitor, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's unchallenged. Mainly due to the cost /price, I'd be more inclined to say it's simply beaten (outclassed really but that sounds a little extreme) in a number of ways by the d850, which competes well with both the 5dmk4 and the 5dsr. 

Comparing it to the d750 at half its cost seems a little unfair, although I do expect the d760 etc to be more direct competition to it, if Nikon go up market with it


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 22, 2017)

docsmith said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



D850 challenges both the 5DS and the 5D4.


----------



## RGF (Dec 24, 2017)

TedYork said:


> Here is what I don't want in my new 5DSRII:
> 1. An Electronic Viewfinder. I took a close look at Sony before buying my current SR. All it took was a look through the EVF. I realize it may be a personal preference, but I like a clear optical finder. Just because we can does not mean we should.
> 2. In body Stabilization. From all that I have read IBIS is a poor man's image stabilization. Not cheaper, but better to have it in the lens. I really prefer the best images stabilizer of all - a tripod!
> 3. Video that is not the best video. If the camera had no video then I could tell the naysayers that I didn't buy the camera for video and be done with it. If it has video that is not as good as Nikon's then I have to listen to that all day - never mind that I only use the video for interviews and such. I'm not making movies, I'm creating beautiful stills.
> ...



Good list but personal I don't shoot video and I don't see advantage of leaf shutter vs high speed synch. While video is nice occasionally, not really key to my purchase decision.

Also would like to see higher FPS and larger buffer. Also don't need an increase in MP, they already have more than enough but I suspect that Canon will increase the MP because they can.

Focus stacking would be great.

Also would like to see flags to set the beginning and end of series of bracketed or focus stacked images (plus manual control for pans). These would be extremely valuable in LR when creating stacks.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 24, 2017)

TedYork said:


> Here is what I don't want in my new 5DSRII:
> 1. An Electronic Viewfinder. I took a close look at Sony before buying my current SR. All it took was a look through the EVF. I realize it may be a personal preference, but I like a clear optical finder. Just because we can does not mean we should.



Well, the problem is that the EVF is so much more useful 50% of the time, and less useful 50% of the time. For example, when I want to compose for black & white photography, it's so much more powerful to be able to see the image *in black and white* within the viewfinder.

And, reviewing images using the viewfinder is so much easier than on the rear screen (especially for those of us who don't have perfect vision.)

Taking one quick look at an EVF and saying it's not for you isn't really giving it a fair chance.

I have the 5DSR *and* the A7RII. Both have their benefits and both have their disadvantages. But I have to say, in general, I prefer using the EVF for everything except fast-action shooting (and I understand with the A9 onwards that's not even a problem any more).

What I'd *really* like to see is a hybrid OVF/EVF, so that in live view mode the mirror swings back and you get an EVF display. I'd even settle with the ability for the 5DSR Mark II to take an external EVF.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 25, 2017)

In camera focus stacking is not something I would have though of or have observed in a device. Those of you with cameras or phones with that feature, please give a little detail. 

I can’t imagine that it would work in the situation I find stacking the most useful, in macro photography, particularly near 1:1. I put a rail on the tripod and shift the whole camera between shots. In that range, moving the focus ring will resize the image, m asking stacking less viable.


----------



## RGF (Dec 25, 2017)

stevelee said:


> In camera focus stacking is not something I would have though of or have observed in a device. Those of you with cameras or phones with that feature, please give a little detail.
> 
> I can’t imagine that it would work in the situation I find stacking the most useful, in macro photography, particularly near 1:1. I put a rail on the tripod and shift the whole camera between shots. In that range, moving the focus ring will resize the image, m asking stacking less viable.



I believe the new Nikon D850 has this. From the little I have heard about it, you set near and far focal points, F stop and the camera takes a series of pictures adjusting the focal distance. Not sure if that is 100% correct - you may need to specify the number of images. Not a Nikon users so information is 2nd hand and sketchy.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 26, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> The 5DSR Mark I hasn't really impressed me as a camera.
> Maybe its my version but the 5D III and 5D IV that I have are better in terms of image quality.
> It doesn't perform well as the ISO goes up.



Always sad if things don't work as expected or hoped. However, your camera or your photography is to blame here. 

5DS/R makes the best image files of any Canon DSLR. Enough that you can see the difference from the 5DIV in pictures that have enough detail. 5DIII does not need to apply at all, 5DS/R is superior on each and every count (except fps).


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 26, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Yes, the 5DSR will give more detail, but likely at the expense of dynamic range. There is no free lunch. In good light I would say use the 5DSR, in low light the 5DIV starts to pull ahead - you can downsample the 5DSR and get closer to the DR of the 5DIV (or the 5DIII), but it is all compromises.



No. 5DS/R has excellent DR. Only at iso 100-400 is the 5DIV ahead. But 5DS/R DR is still clearly better than the 5DIII and 6DII for instance.

The DR (and noise) difference between the 5DIV and 5DS/R collapses as you turn up the iso - and you still have more detail in the 5DS/R pictures.

The 6.400 iso "limitation" of the 5DS/R is artificial. You can just crank up the iso in post to match iso 52.000 or whatever you like from the 5DIV.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 26, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> The DR (and noise) difference between the 5DIV and 5DS/R collapses as you turn up the iso - and you still have more detail in the 5DS/R pictures.
> 
> The 6.400 iso "limitation" of the 5DS/R is artificial. You can just crank up the iso in post to match iso 52.000 or whatever you like from the 5DIV.



I just bought the 5DIV. While the file size of the 5Ds(R) is still my primary issue, I did try to evaluate the two bodies, even though I was already leaning toward the 5DIV.

To my eye, I prefer the 5DIV image here:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=979&Test=2&ISO=6400&CameraComp=1074&TestComp=0&ISOComp=6400

and here:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=979&Test=2&ISO=12800&CameraComp=1074&TestComp=0&ISOComp=12800

Then, of course, there is DR downsampled to a 8MP image, the 5DIV on DXOMark.

I expect the 5DsR MII to make improvements and eliminate the gap. It would be even better to see BSI and have the 5DsR II exceed the 5DIV.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 26, 2017)

docsmith said:


> It would be even better to see BSI and have the 5DsR II exceed the 5DIV.



No, BSI has not translated to 'better' IQ in the larger sensors where the pixel size, comparative to P&S's and phones, is much larger. It seems the tech works best on very small pixels and doesn't scale effectively.



Maiaibing said:


> 5DS/R makes the best image files of any Canon DSLR.



No it doesn't. 

The 1DX MII and 5D MkIV are both technically 'better' quality files, sure they don't have the detail the 5DS/R have, but that isn't the point, unless you quantify your definition of better, and that just means resolution, in which case you have a point, but that isn't how most users would quantify 'better'.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 26, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > It would be even better to see BSI and have the 5DsR II exceed the 5DIV.
> ...



I am no expert, but I hadn't heard the pixel size/BSI issue before. Rather, what I have read is that Nikon introduced the BSI to the D850 in part to get a bit more QE out of that sensor and BSI essentially being the last meaningful advance in QE (getting to the 80-90% range).

Looking at data, the D850 (w/BSI) scores a bit higher at lower ISO, but is the same as the 5DIV (w/o BSI) above ISO 800/1600. That may fly in the face of the above argument as I'd expect a bit better improvement across the board if BSI really was increasing QE (granted, something other than QE could be limiting factor above ISO 800).

If you know more, thoughts? If it is pixel size, at what point does it come into play with a high MP sensor? The 5DsR has a pixel size of 4.14 um. I believe an iPhone sensor is about 1.15 um (FF equivalent to 384 MP).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 26, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > It would be even better to see BSI and have the 5DsR II exceed the 5DIV.
> ...



Please tell us your criteria for quantifying "better".


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 26, 2017)

AlanF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > docsmith said:
> ...



Why? What does my criteria have to do with anything?

But were we to follow popular opinion then the >1 stop of dynamic range at base iso might be important. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R

Or, even if you don't like the figures or the nature of the black box result, few argue the consistency of DxO who measure three (arbitrary) factors and score the 5D MkIV 91, the 1DX MkII 88 and the 5DSR 86. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-5DS-R___1106_1071_1009

Maybe you have an older computer and measure 'better' files as the speed at which you can view and process the images.

There is no metric the 5DS/R are 'best' at in the Canon line other than resolution, as I said, if resolution is your only criteria for measuring 'best' that's fine, but few would agree with you.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 26, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> But were we to follow popular opinion then the >1 stop of dynamic range at base iso might be important.



But what if you compare the dynamic range once you downsample the images from 50mpx down to the native sizes of the 1DXII and the 5DIV? I think especially in the former case the DR and noise issues on the 5DSR would simply disappear. Plus, of course, no low-pass filter, and reducing the effect of the bayer filter due to the resizing operation 

The 1DXII is much faster than the 5DSR. But it doesn't take better quality images. And it's even debatable whether the 5DIV does or not (I've used the 1DXII but not the 5DIV so I can't speak from experience with that one)


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 27, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > But were we to follow popular opinion then the >1 stop of dynamic range at base iso might be important.
> ...



I believe my own eyes, I bought 1DX MkII's because the capability of working shadow detail is a step up with the on sensor ADC, the 5D MkIV also has this whereas the 5DS/R doesn't. If you can't see it then that's fine, if you think reducing a 5DSR to 20MP gives you the same malleability then also fine, I don't.

I do believe the 1DX MkII images are _"better quality images"_ than out of the 5DSR. See the normalized screen shots below of ultimate shadow detail comparing a 5D MkIV and 5DSR, and 1DX MkII and 5DSR, the deeper you go the bigger the difference, this is the same as lifting shadows and the 1DX MkII and 5D MkIV are markedly better than the 5DS.

I am very interested in getting a 5DSR MkII but only if it has on sensor ADC electronics, and certainly not to downsample it.

Bill Claff's DR figures as linked above are normalized for sensor CoC so pixel size does't factor into the >1 stop of difference between the 5DSR snd the two newer cameras. 

_"Reducing the effects of the Bayer filter"_ amount to a theoretical improvement in color rendition that is not even measurable at those reduction ratios and is, as can be seen in the images below, vastly overwhelmed by the additional noise.


----------



## AdjustedInCamera (Dec 31, 2017)

Personally hoping for a Canon version of the d850.

Best sensor; high res; tilty-flippy screen.

Price point £3k - £4k

Seeing patents and product announcements for lots of other things. 

Why not release a camera that will sell like hot cakes?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 31, 2017)

AdjustedInCamera said:


> Personally hoping for a Canon version of the d850.
> Best sensor; high res; tilty-flippy screen.
> Price point £3k - £4k
> ...
> Why not release a camera that will sell like hot cakes?



Sure, it would be a great camera. But Canon has convinced the market it should pay north of $3k for _two_ different higher end non-gripped FF bodies -- the 5D4 and 5DS. So offering that rig you spoke of above would take the legs out of the 5D4, one would think.

Consider: if Canon...


...has been #1 for how long? 14 years?
...has weathered an onslaught of better spec-per-dollar competition and remained #1.
...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet it does not seem to have hurt their sales.
...uniquely doesn't go with the good/better/best gameplan of Sony and Nikon's non-gripped FF bodies.

*...changing their approach to FF bodies to look like two companies that continue to fail to steal their business doesn't look terribly wise.* Sure, we'd love such a super camera like the D850 or the A7R3 in a Canon version, but Canon knows the market so much better than we do. Perhaps it's more profitable for them *not* to give us what we (on an internet forum) want and instead to invest in the _next_ DPAF, anti-flicker, thumb touchscreen AF while eyes are on the on the VF, etc. technology that the whole platform can use.

I am not for a second saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" nearly so much as (a) switching to good/better/best isn't warranted as they haven't lost share to such competitive approaches and (b) Canon's just smarter than investing in things other than spec sheets: quality, reliability, EF portfolio, unmet needs that don't make the spec sheet but they still figure out, etc.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 31, 2017)

TL/DR version of the last post: spec sheets don't fully capture the value proposition of a camera, and Canon knows this much much much better than we do.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 31, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet *it does not seem to have hurt their sales.*
> - A



I’d venture to say it might have: their sales could have been even stronger than they were.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet *it does not seem to have hurt their sales.*
> ...



I'd venture to say you have no way of knowing that, probably no one does (not even Canon, although they are in the best position to guess). But it's important to remember that sales are important, but revenue and profit moreso. If they sell 5% fewer units, but in-house sensor production means 10% more profit, that's a win.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



“Might” and “could” being the operative terms in my post. That was sorta my impetus for posting, if not stated: nobody can state “such and such didn’t hurt sales,” we’d need a ceteris paribus parallel universe to conclude such.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



"Seem to" being the operative words in ahsanford's post, in that case. 

But I took his implication as 'hurting their sales' to the extent that the were displaced from their position as the ILC market leader, and that can be stated unequivocally and with certainty.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




Regarding market share, indeed it is true.

If I could peer though into the parallel universe where say canon had abandoned its vertical integration for ILC imaging sensors and used for example in a hypothetical 5D3.5 what Nikon used in D810, I imagine I’d see more individual canon sales, due to the arguable better IQ being paired with canon’s market leading lens, speedlight, and service ecosystem. 

How’s that for “can’t know” 

Here I am sitting happy with my 5d3 and 1Dx. I even sold my A7Rii (fortunately for me before the iii was announced).


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 31, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet *it does not seem to have hurt their sales.*
> ...



That implies Canon had a R&D pipeline decision tree with a radio button for 'Make Better Sensor' with a Yes or a No _with no impact on other decisions they could have made with the business.
_
With that logic, Canon should always put out the best mostest everythingest into everything, and all flowcharts lead to a D850 or A7R3 because more is more.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> "Seem to" being the operative words in ahsanford's post, in that case.
> 
> But I took his implication as 'hurting their sales' to the extent that the were displaced from their position as the ILC market leader, and that can be stated unequivocally and with certainty.



Too kind, Neuro. Yes, this is what I meant -- I have no way of knowing hypotheticals, but for all of EXMOR's testing and reviewing glory, they aren't racking up sales like (seemingly last-gen) Canon sensors do.

Now, that said, Canon may have internal data that says that they can only maintain #1 with '*not *#1' performance/specs/tech for so long, and that features/spec-lists really do matter if the delta between companies is large enough, i.e. Canon _may _be s---ing their pants about what the competition is up to and what it means for their future.

But the only way we'd know that if the market leader of some 14 years makes a major delta to follow suit, line up their portfolio to good/better/best, match their horsepower, undercut their margins to crank up the sales appeal / value proposition, etc.

When that happens, we'll know they're getting hurt by the A7 phenomenon or a (yet again after the D810) a wonderful Nikon D850 rig that gobbles up the pros.

- A


----------



## docsmith (Dec 31, 2017)

I saw an add for Annie Leibowitz's online course. In it she said something to the extent of _What camera are you using? laughter....if that is what you are thinking about, you are not taking pictures._

That said, I love my gear, but also think that we aren't where we were when I started with digital photography. Back then, there were real differences in gear. Now, the differences are so subtle. For example, I just upgraded to the 5DIV (love gear). I am enjoying it over the 5DIII. Haven't yet used the extra DR. But the touch screen, Wi-Fi are great, and then, here is something amazing, it seems to do better with colors and exposure right out of the camera so I am spending less time in post. 

Anyway, this is just my opinion, but I think the other thing that is lost in these debates is what type of company Canon is. And this is me speculating, but I think they have chosen to be the company that provides proven, steady, dependable, and user friendly gear. They are trying to keep up with technology, but have no issues lagging a bit behind as long as what they put out is going to easily work for a wide array of users. That is a sound market leader strategy. Let others do the cost intensive endeavors of pushing the envelope into new areas and develop markets. Canon's efforts have typically been in making what they do better (video, DPAF, high MP sensors, etc), and then expanding into a market (mirrorless) after it has been established by others.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 31, 2017)

docsmith said:


> I saw an add for Annie Leibowitz's online course. In it she said something to the extent of _What camera are you using? laughter....if that is what you are thinking about, you are not taking pictures._
> 
> That said, I love my gear, but also think that we aren't where we were when I started with digital photography. Back then, there were real differences in gear. Now, the differences are so subtle. For example, I just upgraded to the 5DIV (love gear). I am enjoying it over the 5DIII. Haven't yet used the extra DR. But the touch screen, Wi-Fi are great, and then, here is something amazing, it seems to do better with colors and exposure right out of the camera so I am spending less time in post.
> 
> Anyway, this is just my opinion, but I think the other thing that is lost in these debates is what type of company Canon is. And this is me speculating, but I think they have chosen to be the company that provides proven, steady, dependable, and user friendly gear. They are trying to keep up with technology, but have no issues lagging a bit behind as long as what they put out is going to easily work for a wide array of users. That is a sound market leader strategy. Let others do the cost intensive endeavors of pushing the envelope into new areas and develop markets. Canon's efforts have typically been in making what they do better (video, DPAF, high MP sensors, etc), and then expanding into a market (mirrorless) after it has been established by others.



For many years she used a 1DS MkIII and the compulsory Hasselblad, she isn't gear agnostic, but she can and does rely on techs to 'deal with all that for her'. For a far more broad skilled photographer look no further than the Canon explorer of light Gregory Heisler, he has mastered gear and light to an order of magnitude higher than Leibowitz. For the perfect example of this read his background discussions about the portrait of Rudy Giuliani and why he used an 8x10 rather than the 135 format with a TS-E 24 with the same fov.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 31, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...




What? No it doesn’t imply that, or anything at all.

Clearly their business model is working for them. I didn’t suggest having better image quality would have made them more *profitable*; indeed it could have increased the NRE and maybe recurring process costs they need to recoup in a price-sensitive market. All I’m saying is that they certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Nikon or Sony “DR is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured. 

As clarified, you meant it didn’t hurt their position as market leader. Agreed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> All I’m saying is that they certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Nikon or Sony “DR is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured.



No doubt. But then, Sony and Nikon certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Canon “video AF is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured. I wonder which crowd is larger?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > All I’m saying is that they certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Nikon or Sony “DR is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured.
> ...



The latter. I don’t suspect the market at large is represented by techno-enthusiast forums.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > All I’m saying is that they certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Nikon or Sony “DR is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured.
> ...



This is an interesting video from CW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EZCj9jJlLI&feature=youtu.be

vloggers switching to Canon because 4k is not worth the time, nor the bandwidth, it takes to process and DP-AF just works.


----------



## RGF (Dec 31, 2017)

brianftpc said:


> If only there were a leak to give me a reason not to buy the a7Riii



choice is more than specs. I tried the A7Rii and found it was very difficult to use and be productive. The main reason, I suspect, was that I did not invest the amount of time necessary to master the camera.

Even w/o seeing the specs of the 5DsR II, I can tell you that the A7RIII will surpass it in some ways and can will win in others.

Have you used the A7RII? If you are happy with it, then you will be happy with the A7RIII. Otherwise suggest you rent one before buying. Allocate a lot of time to learning the camera.


----------



## bwud (Dec 31, 2017)

RGF said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > If only there were a leak to give me a reason not to buy the a7Riii
> ...



It's more than a time investment. A7Rii is obtuse. I used one almost exclusively for two years (still used my canon 5D bodies when shooting action), and it feels like it intentionally gets in the way of shooting. Even once configured to absolutely minimize menu calls, it's slow to use.

A7Riii is a night and day improvement. It just works the way a camera should, doesn't feel like a sluggish proof of concept, and can be configured even more precisely to taste.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 1, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> All I’m saying is that they certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Nikon or Sony “DR is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured.



If DR is of utmost importance, then Sony and Nikon will make gains. The idea that Canon could have captured this crowd is false. At this time, and perhaps for some time in the future, Sony seems to have the best sensor and architecture to deliver the highest IQ. They have this methodology patented. Canon - or any other company - will need to come up with a patented methodology to create a sensor and accompanying architecture that will be better. They don't have such a technology - so they cannot capture the "need the best DR" crowd.

One possible reason that Canon continues to succeed despite having slightly worse DR at low ISO is that most people aren't pixel peepers and most people don't underexpose 3 or 4 stops and most people aren't lifting shadows that much. For them, the difference in DR is either negligible or not noticeable at all. Having tried both the A& and A7 II, I fall into this group.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 1, 2018)

dak723 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > All I’m saying is that they certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Nikon or Sony “DR is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured.
> ...



You might have missed the hypothetical portion of this exchange. 



dak723 said:


> Canon - or any other company - will need to come up with a patented methodology to create a sensor and accompanying architecture that will be better. They don't have such a technology - so they cannot capture the "need the best DR" crowd.



The technology need not be patented, it merely need be available to them. 

I have significant doubts a company with canon’s experience and R&D capital is incapable of building sensors every bit as “good” as Sony’s. And even if they are, I know they are capable of purchasing sensors from Sony Semicon. That they do not merely indicates that 1) they don’t see investment in having “the best” sensor as materially important to their product (I agree with them) or profits, and 2) they prefer vertical integration in the ILC camera products (they buy sensors for some of their compacts). 

However, if they offered everything they do, from build, ergo, lenses, speedlights, unique capabilities like DPAF, support infrastructure, etc., and did it with a “better” sensor by whatever means (their own fab or a purchased item), there is little doubt in my mind their sales wouldn’t have been stronger. 

Regardless, it’s all irrelevant because what ahsanford meant is not what I responded to


----------



## littleB (Jan 1, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> However, if they offered everything they do, from build, ergo, lenses, speedlights, unique capabilities like DPAF, support infrastructure, etc., and did it with a “better” sensor by whatever means (their own fab or a purchased item), there is little doubt in my mind their sales wouldn’t have been stronger.
> 
> Regardless, it’s all irrelevant because what ahsanford meant is not what I responded to


What your mind is lacking is the understanding why the technology is patented. The owner of patented technology can set any price to their technology and can deliberately choose to sell or not to sell any of such technology to any asking party. Why on Earth would Sony allow sales of their matrices to a direct competitor at all, and even if allowed, what would be their asking price. There is no reason to ask reasonable prices. I have no doubts that the cost of buying the external technology and the cost of integration will lead to final product cost that you would not like.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 1, 2018)

littleB said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > However, if they offered everything they do, from build, ergo, lenses, speedlights, unique capabilities like DPAF, support infrastructure, etc., and did it with a “better” sensor by whatever means (their own fab or a purchased item), there is little doubt in my mind their sales wouldn’t have been stronger.
> ...



? 

Sony do sell their tech to direct competitors - FF in Nikon and Pentax, smaller sensors to Canon as well. 

In the course of my photography and digital imaging business I've _never_ come across anyone outside of Internet forums who have complained about Canon sensors and this ridiculous internet centric "lower image quality at low ISO when underexposing by three stops and lifting shadows". Not one single person. So when you look at the amount of people who frequent forums such as CR compared with the amount of people globally who have cameras, I would agree with 3krmad5 that the fitting of a Sony Exmor sensor wouldn't have made one jot of difference to overall sales.


----------



## littleB (Jan 1, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> ?
> 
> Sony do sell their tech to direct competitors - FF in Nikon and Pentax, smaller sensors to Canon as well.


I guess the level of competition between Sony and Canon is different than between Sony and Pentax. It is Sony will that will be ultimate deciding the sensor deal if Canon ever asked to buy their sensors. Thats one of protections that patents provide. Canon obviously does not like to be in asking position when DSLRs are concerned. 

Sony and Nikon had a joint ventrure to develop and manufacture sensors, they may have some agreements regarding access to sensors.

For smaller sensors, the market is completely different, much more players and much more competition both in demand and supply. Rare cases of Sony sensors in little Canon cameras may be a result of this competition. Even in those cases Sony have means to lower competition wih Canon by delaying or limiting competitor access to their sensors. DSLR competition is not so multilateral.


----------



## BillB (Jan 1, 2018)

littleB said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > ?
> ...



Canon's dual pixel technology would seem to have some relevance here. As long is Canon is committed to dual pixel technology, it isn't going to be using Sony sensors, even if Sony gives them away.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 3, 2018)

littleB said:


> What your mind is lacking is the understanding why the technology is patented. The owner of patented technology can set any price to their technology and can deliberately choose to sell or not to sell any of such technology to any asking party.



I know why technology is patented, I own several. “What your mind is lacking is the understanding why” (to put it in your friendly terminology) companies sometimes strategically don’t patent processes (which I’ll remind is what you brought up: “...need to come up with a patented methodology to create...”). If a process gives you an advantage and it’s unlikely your competitors will figure out how you make what you make, patenting tips your hand and your competitors merely need recreate, find an improvement (which is easy), and then they can go toe to toe with you by standing on your shoulders.

That canon may not have a patent for X should never be taken as an indication canon doesn’t have the capability to produce much less purchase X.



littleB said:


> Why on Earth would Sony allow sales of their matrices to a direct competitor at all



Why does Samsung sell flash memory, DRAM, OLED displays to Apple? More on point, why does Sony sell small camera sensors to vendors like Apple and Samsung whose products compete with its own Xperia line?

Sony Semiconductor exists to sell products. There is almost no doubt that if canon came with their checkbook asking for full frame sensors, Sony would sell them.



littleB said:


> I have no doubts that the cost of buying the external technology and the cost of integration will lead to final product cost that you would not like.



It may cost less, it may cost more. Given that Sony Semi has much larger throughput than Canon, the cost could easily come out a wash. But that’s neither here nor there.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (May 15, 2018)

bwud said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > brianftpc said:
> ...



I have the A7RII, and have sent it in for repair twice now. Once for the SD slot not locking the card in, and then for a sticky shutter, and glitchy electronics. Sometimes the camera just goes blank, as if there is no power. Sometimes the Aperture and Shutter speed go wonkers. It happens at the worst of times. Turn it off and On and its all OK. Then the lens mount has some play in it. I use it with the MetaBones as I only have a couple natives, and they are not that popular in my use. The 70-200 L IS is a lot of lens for the size of the camera, and this lens play now effects the communication of the lens, and even does so with the 24-70 L2.8 So things are not made with tight tolerance. Changing Modes would often trip the electronics and cause it to glitch. Power down and up, and its OK again with a slight adjustment of the lens contacts.

I have ZERO plans of giving up my Canon glass, so I guess I will not know how much of these issues are Sny to adapter related vs Sony body. But I think the way things happen I can say its the body itself for the most part.

I also was at a noon shoot at the beach, and the Sony VF was a NIGHTMARE. DOes the A7R# have a vastly, or even significantly improved VF? It was BEAUTIFUL using a optical VF (NOT the case in studio, as the opposite is true, I love using the Sony). 
SO...DOES the A7R3 address these issues? Can you list them off with a YES or NO?
Since you have had both and the Canon, you might know my perspective.


----------



## Talys (May 15, 2018)

Phil Indeblanc said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



I think the A7R3 and A9 have a vastly improved viewfinder over the A7R2. But for myself, it's an improvement from unusable to unpleasant to use.

- It's turned off when my eye isn't on it, which loses precious moments as I bring the camera to my eye.
- It still eats batteries like crazy
- The image is pleasing, but it still definitely looks like an electronic image. I'd like the EVF to be indistinguishable from the image from an OVF
- It might not have a lot of lag, but it has more lag than zero, which is not great for wildlife
- The resolution still is not nearly good enough for me to be happy with it. The pixel density will need to get quite a lot higher.

Things I do like:
- MF Focus magnification
... ok, well, that's actually all I really like about it, but it's hard to overstate how much I really, really like that feature.

For me, it still feels that the main purpose of an EVF is to make sure that exposure isn't bungled. But, especially given the amazing ability to adjust RAW files in post now, the number of bungled exposures that I get is practically zero. 

A viewfinder's job is to help me with exposure, focus, and composition. I think that EVF as it exists today on the A7/A9 series, for me, helps with exposure but hurts with composition. The A7R3 helps greatly with manual focus but pays an equal price in in autofocus speed.

So, for me, it's neither a better or worse device; it's just a different set of compromises, and those compromises happen to fall on things that I'd rather not sacrifice.


----------



## deleteme (May 15, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> In the course of my photography and digital imaging business I've _never_ come across anyone outside of Internet forums who have complained about Canon sensors and this ridiculous internet centric "lower image quality at low ISO when underexposing by three stops and lifting shadows". Not one single person. So when you look at the amount of people who frequent forums such as CR compared with the amount of people globally who have cameras, I would agree with 3krmad5 that the fitting of a Sony Exmor sensor wouldn't have made one jot of difference to overall sales.



Yup.


----------



## tomscott (May 15, 2018)

I think what is difficult to stomach for many long term canon users is that Canon are sitting on their laurels a fair amount. Back in the early days they were so hungry sometimes releases in cameras were less or just over a year.

They were always at the forefront and that was the selling point. You could rely on the fact you didnt need to look at what the comp were doing because generally Canon had it covered and content users are happy users.

Canon have been very conservative since 2012 really with tech not improving vastly or superseding competition.

I would argue that the DR difference isnt a big deal. It isnt for me anyway but latitude is alwasy welcome. I would condem the 4 stop difference charts because its just not a real world application. I dont think I have ever increased an exposure 4 stops.

People get so tied up in trivial arguments when the competition is only offering a small amount of increase. It was different with the 5DMKIII with it having poor shadow noise and increasing shadow areas left muddy purple detail. Now with newer cameras this has completely disappeared, the 5DMKIV is stellar and although the 6DMKII doesnt have on chip ADC its a far better sensor than the 5DMKIII IMO.

The thing is weve got to such a tertiary point that any gains are small now and the products are excellent.

TBH its not the technology that I think is the problem, you can do anything with modern DSLRs within reason. What I would like to see is some sort of inovation of the camera itself and I dont think a change in form factor is "IT". Smartphones have created a whole new genre, but the cameras are still poor, small sensors, single focal lengths, simulated DOF etc etc

What I would like to see is more option for 3rd party apps to allow more use of the computers controlling the cameras. What you can do with an mobile phone is incredible but what ever tech they bring and how ever 'good' people seem to think they are, even the best cameras phones are dire IMO especially when you compare them to a FF camera.

Having the processing power and tighter integration similar to what samsung did with the NX1. Half of the issue currently is that its far easier to take, edit and share images on a phone. There must be a simple way to combat this where the camera can do more of the work instead of transferring it over and the only reason for the camera is capture then the tool is set aside.

This is where I think they are missing a trick and why people love smartphones. They are also tertiary products and what these apps can do with the camera is incredible. You can do almost anything, even down to simple things like the sunseeker app that shows you where the sun will be, engaging intervalometers, star seeker, Depth of Field calculator, Hyperfocal Table, exposure controls that dont require a timer to get over 30 seconds. Those are just touching the surface and specific to how the camera works and skills in location scouting and planning. There are so much more creative applications as well as technical.

Currently cameras are a burden to average users and they truely think a mobile phone is a better option. I tend to leave my camera at home more than I used to and use my phone. At the end of an afternoon out or a weekend away being able to make a small video of the clips the camera has taken as a quick overview of a weekend in Apples Memories tool is really a lovely addition.

Its not a pro function but does everything need to be pro centric? If I wanted to do the same with my canon I would document the weekend or day have to show images on a paltry little screen that dont do the images justice without transferring them to another device. Get home transfer the images and video to my computer, sort and edit the images I want to use, boot up final cut, spend a couple of hours putting it together then let it export then try to share it. In the mean time the phone can do this in a couple of minutes and you can share it to a TV and watch it before the trip is completely over.

With memories I can quickly select what I want and it puts it together and you can change the time or move images around, get to that few seconds of a video that really matters. If I want to make something more charming and long lasting I can do that too with final cut etc but its all about time, memories are real in the here and now not in a couple of days or weeks time.

These features appeal more to the masses and lets be honest when you work all day every day as a photographer it can be a chore to pic it up at the weekend, its nice to have that sort of capability and you dont have to work that hard to make something really quite nice. Especially if you have kids, ive seen some amazing 1-2 min vids put together in this manner with not much effort.

Thats the nice thing about iPhone apps is that you choose what you want rather than be given what manufactures think you need. There must be some sort of policing so the experience is adequate and the apps actually work.

I generally think its more about making more use of what we already have, improving the experience and redefining what a camera is and what it can do.

The software is as important as the hardware IMO. We've not seen anything in the photographic realms that comes close to this. I dont think there is a difference between what someone would think is a pro or an amateur feature you just download what you need or want to use.

With Augmented Reality being the big talking point simulating your shot in camera with something like sun seekers and knowing about where the sun will be visable in a U or V shaped valley at a specific time and where to be then waiting for that light while your out shooting would be a pretty cool experience.

Im a country bloke and come from the Lake District UK. The lakes are long and can be north to south east to west or somewhere inbetween. Depending on the time of year you might get up at 5am to get a sunrise image and the sun may never break over the top of a mountain and light a valley. This is just one use case and im not really an absolute avid landscaper I enjoy it but its not my all out passion.

I dont think the boundaries of what you could do with a camera have even been touched. Essentially the DSLR is a dinosaur in this respect, same with mirrorless cameras when you could do the above and the tech has been around for years.

The challenge in modern photography is getting images out quickly and easily which is why imo the DSLR and even mirrorless cameras arent succeeding in the mainstream. DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are still niche products compared to a smart phone.

Even the merits of mirroless cameras are so small, a digital display so you can see exposure... smaller body but unwieldy lenses. It blows my mind at what tiny scale these manufacturers think about when improving cameras. Miniscule differences in the grand scheme of things and really how slow these things are implemented.

I dont really think mirrorless is really better its just a different form factor with a couple of mechanical/electronic changes. 

Where is the innovation? Why are we stuck where we are? Cameras have been the same in the digital space since the D30 which is 18 years ago. Even that was based on the film variants which first came to market in the late 1940s...


----------



## Ozarker (May 17, 2018)

tomscott said:


> Where is the innovation? Why are we stuck where we are? Cameras have been the same in the digital space since the D30 which is 18 years ago. Even that was based on the film variants which first came to market in the late 1940s...



Tom, you make some very good points about the apps and all that, but lets not forget another big reason smartphones are so popular: They are free or the cost is built into the plan so that they appear free. The photos are sent to Facebook, Twitter, etc.

My wife and I both have smartphones, Casio G'zone. They are old (7 or 8 years?). They are slow. They were free. We are both over 50 (Maybe that's the problem), so we still remember the luxury of leaving the house in the morning and not being bothered by phone calls all day long or not seeing photos of somebody's lunch or hourly selfies.  That is a luxury.

I've sort of got lost here, but for me, adding smartphone like functionality to a camera isn't innovation. For me, that's called clutter. So I guess I'm the other side of the coin. I don't take photos with my phone. I don't run the apps. on a phone. My GPS is mounted on my windshield. I really would not want a camera bogged down with all that sort of thing.

I know I'm probably in the minority. That's fine. I have a hard time understanding the idea that there isn't innovation when we see it every few months in the Canon world. You've put down what you think that means better than anyone else I've read.

Innovation for me means something different: Those little steps that add up to big steps. It takes a while to work up to something revolutionary, but gives me the time to enjoy the nuance of getting there.

Now, bring out a "Smart Camera" that includes a complete interchangeable lens system with phone functionality on a plan for $45 a month and free upgrades on the whole enchilada every two years? I'm on it.


----------



## unfocused (May 17, 2018)

tomscott said:


> ...Smartphones have created a whole new genre...
> 
> ...Half of the issue currently is that its far easier to take, edit and share images on a phone. There must be a simple way to combat this where the camera can do more of the work instead of transferring it over and the only reason for the camera is capture then the tool is set aside...
> 
> ...



You are so right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=bfCJDIf-NeA

I've been beaten and battered on this forum for saying this, but I will say it again:

It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot. 

A student recently showed me some videos she produced on her iPhone: shot, edited, added titles, effects, transitions, etc., all without ever touching a computer (other than her phone) and they were damn good. I thought about the time it would take me to do that on my $6,000 camera, my $1,000 lens, $1,500 computer and $60/month software. 

There is zero reason why we should not be able to do all the same editing on our cameras and uploading without having to use clunky, crappy work arounds.


----------



## Mikehit (May 17, 2018)

unfocused said:


> A student recently showed me some videos she produced on her iPhone: shot, edited, added titles, effects, transitions, etc., all without ever touching a computer (other than her phone) and they were damn good. I thought about the time it would take me to do that on my $6,000 camera, my $1,000 lens, $1,500 computer and $60/month software.



So let's ignore the fact that anyone who buys a full camera kit does so because it does things a smarthpone can, or that if you are happy with snapspeed there are plenty of free editing programs for computers, and let's ignore the monthly rental costs of a phone. 

You have a decent point regards the capability of the technology but everything else is pretty specious.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 17, 2018)

unfocused said:


> You are so right.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=bfCJDIf-NeA
> 
> ...



There is zero reason why ALL smart phones can't take SD cards. I'd rather put the video taken from the camera and move it to the phone via card rather than the slow wi-fi, then use the phone to edit/post etc. And how many people would want to pay for wireless data access for a camera too? Average lifespan of a camera is longer than a phone, so I'd rather have the editing/apps on the phone rather than the camera. Of course, I can't even do that if I wanted to because my 3+ year old 16GB iphone only has about 1 GB of free space (thanks iOS) and I don't have unlimited data.


----------



## unfocused (May 17, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > A student recently showed me some videos she produced on her iPhone: shot, edited, added titles, effects, transitions, etc., all without ever touching a computer (other than her phone) and they were damn good. I thought about the time it would take me to do that on my $6,000 camera, my $1,000 lens, $1,500 computer and $60/month software.
> ...



I'm not sure what set you off and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Maybe I'm too thick. Did you mean to write: "...does things a smartphone CAN'T..."?

I wasn't making a cost comparison, I'm simply pointing out that all camera manufactures have massively failed to keep up with technology and photographers suffer as a result. (Not to mention that it hasn't helped their business either, as evidenced by the death of Point and Shoot and the decline in all camera sales)


----------



## FramerMCB (May 17, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DSR Mark I hasn't really impressed me as a camera.
> ...



The one thing I've read over and over about the 5DsR (& 5Ds) is that with these MP monster's, technique matters greatly to get the most out of them. Meaning, if you are hand-holding for example and are going by the old rule of thumb concerning the shutter-speed to focal length ratio (even factoring IS in) you need to bump that up by at least 1 stop or the resulting images may not be as crisp. Now if you're exclusively a tripod shooter with this camera your results should be great-to-fantastic as far as resolution goes. However, your final image can also be more susceptible to atmospheric haze too, I've read...


----------



## AlanF (May 17, 2018)

FramerMCB said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



I don't use a tripod, but I will rest the camera on anything available if I can. I do use very fast shutter speeds for distant small birds or birds in flight - not just rule of thumb x 2 but 1/2500s or faster. Ari Hazeghi uses these speeds with his low mpixel cameras too. For close-up birds, 1/200s gives very sharp results if the bird is still. I am no lo longer scared of using iso6400 as DxO suppresses the noise well and the results are at least as good as with my 5DIV. And, if necessary, I also underexpose by a couple of stops at iso6400 and fixed speed as I can pull back.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 17, 2018)

unfocused said:


> It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.



That simply is not true. Any f the cameras that take a WFT have the capability to upload direct. Any with WiFi, NFC or WFT's have the ability to be put into a tablet or phone for exactly the same functionality more connected devices have too.

I do agree with your premise that it is a feature more people want in their cameras and it needs to be much easier to do, but to say you can't do it simply isn't true.


----------



## ahsanford (May 17, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.
> ...



The weird bit for me is that the device I wish more seamlessly could share photos to the world -- my 5D3 -- is also the device I am most like capture photos that I want to post-process on my own.

I always shoot RAW + JPG as I am not buffer constrained in what/how I shoot. I archive JPG straight out of camera, but the keepers I want to share show off here, on social media, etc. are overwhelmingly my better shots that I want to clean up in ACR.

And using PS on the ipad or the lighter version of it on the Phone is not at all my cup of tea, I wish I had lightning quick connectivity for... the _non_-keepers? That's weird, right? This is probably why I've never bought a DSLR with wifi.

- A


----------



## Talys (May 17, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.
> ...



Here's the thing: how many people would be willing to pay for cellular data plan to upload photos directly from a camera? 

Sending photos from a smartphone makes sense because you're paying for a data plan anyways, so the best we can do with a camera is to leverage the smartphone and send a photo that way. The problem is that this will always be much clunkier than directly sending it from a smartphone, because there are no technologies for maintaining constant connection between phone and camera and not sucking up battery, and there are no good (seamless) technologies for a paired connection on demand between smartphone and camera.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 17, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The weird bit for me is that the device I wish more seamlessly could share photos to the world -- my 5D3 -- is also the device I am most like capture photos that I want to post-process on my own.
> 
> I always shoot RAW + JPG as I am not buffer constrained in what/how I shoot. I archive JPG straight out of camera, but the keepers I want to share show off here, on social media, etc. are overwhelmingly my better shots that I want to clean up in ACR.
> 
> ...



WiFi on the 5D IV has come in handy at times. I've moved files from the camera to the phone and then emailed them out or put them on FB. Not very often, but it's nice to have. One notable time this happened was when I was traveling for work in AL. I had the weekend free, so I went to Little River Canyon National Preserve. I had stopped by an overlook, and across the canyon was one of the tallest falls in AL (Grace's High Falls). The ranger didn't think it was running (seasonal), but it was. It was just me and a group of bikers. The bikers remarked how beautiful it was, but they couldn't take pictures of it with their cellphones because it was across the canyon. I had the 70-300L. One of the bikers remarked how she wished she had a camera like that, and that's when I offered to email the picture of the falls to her.


----------



## unfocused (May 17, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.
> ...



Admittedly I'm not the most tech savvy person, so I may have missed it. Could you point me to the menu item on the 5DIV that allows me to upload an image directly to Dropbox, Facebook, Twitter or Instagram with the same ease that it can be done on an iPhone? 

I thought I was pretty clear that I was comparing the seamless smart phone user experience to the clunky DSLR experience and never suggested it was impossible with a wifi connected camera. Although I would point out that DSLRs have been very late to the party – My 1DxII has a crippled touch screen and no wifi. And, I don't consider having to connect to a second device as really being an acceptable solution.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 17, 2018)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



We are in complete agreement.

The only part of your opinion I considered incorrect was the exact quote of yours I clipped, _that it can't be done in seconds_, it can, though I 100% agree with you it is clunky at best and for those that are interested in social media posting pro and semi pro cameras are simply not designed with that functionality adequately in mind.

I suppose the bottom line is camera makers think of the pro/semi pro bodies as completely different tools, tractors only have one seat and no luggage space, but they tow better than any SUV. The 1 and 5 series cameras can be hooked up to servers and computers, wired or wirelessly, and have tagged images put out on cable services in seconds, just look at the Olympics as proof of that.

But, as has been pointed out, if you want the functionality without a second device to upload it from then are you thinking you are going to want a data capable SIM card and associated contract? I don't, I'll take the WiFi or Ethernet connection and send it to a more appropriate device. 

I did do a series of studio shoots for college sports stars and they were very social media minded. I shot tethered into LR where I had a custom preset that processed the images and then they could be copied to 'Publish Services' to any number of social media sites from within LR. In total about 4 or 5 clicks of the mouse had the selected images imported, processed, cropped, tagged, and uploaded to social media in seconds.

If I wanted the workflow you are looking for today I'd connect a 5D MkIV via the built in WiFi to a SIM enabled iPad via an adhoc network to LR, then I'd do basic selects and edits and use the share functionality to post to wherever you want, that isn't time consuming or involved and you can do exactly the same thing on your phone if you are more interested in posting than image quality.


----------



## dak723 (May 17, 2018)

Talys said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Good to see that at least one person understands why there is no DIRECT connection to the internet and that you will always need to send the pics to your phone first.


----------



## Mikehit (May 18, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Yo are right, I did mean 'can't'. 

I am not really sure it is a 'massive failure' to keep up with technology and whether photographers really 'suffer'. Cameras are getting the option now to edit in camera (including Canon, shock...horror!) but let's face it, the reason cameras have those options is to crop (cameras have telephoto and zoom lenses to do it in the camera) and the reason that smartphones are overtaking cameras is not because a camera cannot upload to the internet but because it is smaller and the quality is good enough for them.
They will not leave their phone at home just because their camera can send images direct to the internet, they are leaving the camera at home because they will have the phone with them anyway and the image quality is good enough so why bother even buying a camera let alone take one with you. 

Can they fit the wireless technology into a camera to give internet capability like a phone? I am not convinced, considering the challenges they have had even fitting bluetooth/wifi aerials that do not impact image quality - and those only needs to communicate over a few feet to a wifi point, not many miles to the nearest satellite. This is less an issue with phones because the image is of lower quality in the first place.


----------



## unfocused (May 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I am not really sure it is a 'massive failure' to keep up with technology and whether photographers really 'suffer'...
> 
> ...Can they fit the wireless technology into a camera to give internet capability like a phone? I am not convinced...



To your first point, I would just use one small example. Newspapers across the country, both large and small, have been cutting photography staffs and sending reporters out with iPhones and iPads. Mostly that is the result of the general collapse of the newspaper industry, but I'm sure it didn't help that a staff photographer with his or her purpose-built camera was unable to get the picture to the editor with the same speed as a reporter using an iPhone. 

My point here is that all the camera manufacturers failed to comprehend the impact that connectivity would have on the industry. They failed professional photographers by not making connectivity a higher priority. Yes, the photographers at events like the Olympics or NFL games have massive support networks, LAN connections, etc. etc., to get the picture to the editors as soon as possible. But, for the vast majority of professional sports photographers who are one-man bands covering small colleges, minor league teams, etc., the industry hasn't put a priority on solving their challenges. 

Imagine the frustration of the small market newspaper photographer who goes out to cover a breaking news event and by the time he or she is back in the office, the paper has received a dozen iPhone photos of exactly the same event. That's not good for job security. Especially in an industry where being first has traditionally had a much higher priority than being best.

Could some of those lost jobs have been saved if Canon and Nikon has placed greater priority on solving connectivity issues? We will never know. But, I'm willing to bet that at least a few unemployed staff photographers wish they had tried. 

As to your point about the technical difficulties. Sorry, I don't buy it. Not when you look at the size of the typical smart phone.


----------



## Mikehit (May 18, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Could some of those lost jobs have been saved if Canon and Nikon has placed greater priority on solving connectivity issues? We will never know. But, I'm willing to bet that at least a few unemployed staff photographers wish they had tried.



I very much doubt connectivity would have made a difference. People sending smartphone pictures is free. A photographer - and the paper would have had to pay the network charges for the photographer. 



unfocused said:


> As to your point about the technical difficulties. Sorry, I don't buy it. Not when you look at the size of the typical smart phone.


You mentioned it right there. Size. A phone is smaller than camera and does a good enough job for most people.

"Hmm... I have a phone that has photo capabilities, or I can take my new-fangled camera that has internet capability but no phone"
Which do you think wins out?

But my main point was the technology - I often take the reductionist approach which would be "if the technology is available right now, why haven't they...". I think 'because they can't be bothered is too simplistic. 
Someone has gone to the trouble of developing the Eyefi card but even that is only a link to a phone. Why have they not designed one to connect to the internet like a phone card?

If internet capability is as important to pros as you say, do you think camera manufacturers wouldn't be trampling over themselves to build it in? Maybe they have asked pros and there are things more important. Maybe the pros don't even think it is on their radar as an important functionality so don't ask for it. Maybe if the manufacturers put their minds to it, they could overcome all the technological hurdles and do it but they have more important things to do. 
Put all that together and there is a very strong argument that although people like the opportunity to post to Instagram within 10 seconds of taking the photo, in cameras vs phone battle is matters squat.


----------

