# No EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Replacements in 2017 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 9, 2017)

```
We get asked a fair bit about the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R and whether or not we can expect replacements any time soon. We’re told that we won’t be seeing a replacement for either camera in 2017, but that there is obviously plans for another high megapixel DSLR.</p>
<p>We do think these cameras will likely be replaced by a single model in the second half of 2018.</p>
<p>Canon has shown us a <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/demo-of-canon-250mp-sensor-and-turbulence-removal-feature/">250mp CMOS sensor</a> as well as a <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-developing-8k-cinema-eos-camera-120mp-dslr-8k-display/">120mp CMOS sensor DSLR</a>, with a variation of the latter being more likely to end up in a consumer DSLR. We have no information as to what the megapixel count would be for an EOS 5DS Mark II, but it will likely be a significant jump from the current 50.6mp.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## mclaren777 (Mar 9, 2017)

I was thinking about your recent comment on the rumored 85mm IS...

If you know more about it, why wouldn't you tell us? Your business model revolves around leaks and hype, yet you seem to be sitting on accurate intel. Are you perhaps under some form of NDA?


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 9, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> Canon has shown us a 250mp CMOS sensor as well as a 120mp CMOS sensor, with a variation of the latter being more likely to end up in a consumer DSLR. We have no information as to what the megapixel count would be for an EOS 5DS Mark II, but it will likely be a significant jump from the current 50.6mp.


did CR forget that canon did a 120MP DSLR development announcement?

I'd be surprised if it was anything but 120MP.

"Featuring a resolution of approximately 120 effective megapixels, the SLR camera now being developed will incorporate a Canon-developed high-pixel-density CMOS sensor within the current EOS-series platform, which will realize compatibility with the Company's diverse interchangeable EF lens lineup."

http://global.canon/en/news/2015/sep08e2.html


----------



## jebrady03 (Mar 9, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> I was thinking about your recent comment on the rumored 85mm IS...
> 
> If you know more about it, why wouldn't you tell us? Your business model revolves around leaks and hype, yet you seem to be sitting on accurate intel. Are you perhaps under some form of NDA?



If you think about it it's incredibly easy to come up with a plausible scenario. An NDA is certainly one of them but more than likely it was a source who asked for the information to not be posted yet - perhaps such a leak at that point could leave them vulnerable. And in the reporting game, you never burn a source. That would be a short-sighted gain for a long-term loss.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 9, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> I was thinking about your recent comment on the rumored 85mm IS...
> 
> If you know more about it, why wouldn't you tell us? Your business model revolves around leaks and hype, yet you seem to be sitting on accurate intel. Are you perhaps under some form of NDA?



Of course things are under NDAs


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 9, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has shown us a 250mp CMOS sensor as well as a 120mp CMOS sensor, with a variation of the latter being more likely to end up in a consumer DSLR. We have no information as to what the megapixel count would be for an EOS 5DS Mark II, but it will likely be a significant jump from the current 50.6mp.
> ...



Yes, I linked it in the post. Canon shows lots of things at the Canon EXPO that never actually become a consumer product the way they're shown. There's also no guarantee that the DSLR they showed at the Canon EXPO would be a replacement to the EOS 5DS series.


----------



## Jopa (Mar 9, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> I was thinking about your recent comment on the rumored 85mm IS...
> 
> If you know more about it, why wouldn't you tell us? Your business model revolves around leaks and hype, yet you seem to be sitting on accurate intel. Are you perhaps under some form of NDA?



An NDA for a rumors site owner sounds somewhat contradictional 

Jokes aside - bad news, but nothing unexpected actually... the demoed 120 mpx sensor was aps-h, not ff, so maybe we will see something different, the 120mpx one would require a significant IS update. If they just make the v2 with the same s sensor but adc on chip, it would make me totally happy.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 9, 2017)

Jopa said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking about your recent comment on the rumored 85mm IS...
> ...



I'm not under NDA, but this is for fun, not to get people in trouble. An EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is coming this year, pricing hasn't been set and we don't have an exact announcement date. I'm not sure what other information people want beyond that.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 9, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> I was thinking about your recent comment on the rumored 85mm IS...
> 
> If you know more about it, why wouldn't you tell us? Your business model revolves around leaks and hype, yet you seem to be sitting on accurate intel. Are you perhaps under some form of NDA?



1) CR guy didn't have to tell us that they knew more, so I actually appreciate their transparency with this.

2) Could be their source asked for CR to sit on certain details as they were so well guarded that releasing them would 'out' the source's identity. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 9, 2017)

Regarding no 5DS / R follow up this year:

This makes sense based on Canon being a relatively predictable creature of habit. Canon has a plan and they stick to it. Review any Canon historical release schedule and you'll see Canon does not fast-track FF follow-ups. 

There was a notion they _might_ break from that rule to 'catch up' the 5DS / R to come out on/around the timing of the 5D line so that they'd have apples-to-apples feature sets without missing the boat on a major features (consider the 5DS / R lacks DPAF, DP RAW, on-board WiFi or on-chip ADC). But it appears from this rumor that isn't going to happen.

- A


----------



## entoman (Mar 9, 2017)

*Re: EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Replacements - 60 MP*

Despite the majority opinion here, I don't see Canon bringing out a 120MP EOS in 2018. Canon are always a very conservative company and tend to elaborate on existing designs rather than make huge leaps into the unknown.

The sensors in the 5DS and 5DSR are basically scaled up versions of the 7DMkii sensor. That sensor is now outdated and has been superceded by the much better 24MP sensor found in the 80D. I think it more likely that the 5DS Mkii will have a scaled-up 80D sensor, i.e. 60MP.

I would also expect just a single model, with a cancellable AA filter. This tech is already being tested in the 5DMkiv, which has a user-selectable "Digital Lens Optimiser" which, among other things, cancels the effect of the AA filter.

At the moment this tech has a few bugs - using DSO in the 5DMkiv results in a 2-3 second buffer clearing time (with JPEG or RAW), rendering continuous drive useless when it is enabled. Hopefully this problem will be resolved soon with a firmware update.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 9, 2017)

Regarding the next 5DS having 120 MP:

I would not hold your breath on that. Even if Canon holds off the 5DS / R follow up to 2019+ timeframe (as we'd expect from the 4-5 year cycles we've seen of late on FF SLRs), consider what a 120 MP rig would drive...


When the 5DS / 5DS R came out, Canon only recommended certain lenses for it. They didn't purge large chunks of the EF portfolio from it, but the message was clear -- only certain lenses would let you make the most of the added resolving power of the sensor. _Now imagine how short a lens list we'd see for a 120 MP canvas._


120 MP would have a ridiculously low frame rate -- say 2.1 fps on the current 5DS's data handling ability. Even projecting to 2019, two DIGIC chips might only get you 3 fps, which is (to some) below a floor of usability for many realms of photography. (Can Canon put 3 DIGIC chips in a body?)

I'm not saying a 120 will never happen -- I'm arguing 120 _is not the logical next step_ for high resolution FF for Canon. I expect the 5DS2 to have far less than 120 MP.

- A


----------



## tr573 (Mar 9, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has shown us a 250mp CMOS sensor as well as a 120mp CMOS sensor, with a variation of the latter being more likely to end up in a consumer DSLR. We have no information as to what the megapixel count would be for an EOS 5DS Mark II, but it will likely be a significant jump from the current 50.6mp.
> ...



I can't wait for another round of

TERRIBLE HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE , I ONLY VIEW PIXELS NOT PHOTOS

THIS CAMERA IS USELESS WITHOUT A TRIPOD MADE OF SOLID OAK

Edit: Oh , lest I forget

IF YOU USE THAT LENS ON IT THE PHOTO WILL BE WORSE THAN THAT LENS ON A 5D3


----------



## tr573 (Mar 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> [*]120 MP would have a ridiculously low frame rate -- say 2.1 fps on the current 5DS's data handling ability. Even projecting to 2019, two DIGIC chips might only get you 3 fps, which is (to some) below a floor of usability for many realms of photography. (Can Canon put 3 DIGIC chips in a body?)




Likely they could, but the battery life would be dismal and my 5DS is not exactly setting the world on fire with it's battery life as is.


----------



## jebrady03 (Mar 9, 2017)

slclick said:


> I have no idea who would expect bodies that new to be refreshed so soon. Patience Glasshopper.


Sony customers.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 9, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> Yes, I linked it in the post. Canon shows lots of things at the Canon EXPO that never actually become a consumer product the way they're shown. There's also no guarantee that the DSLR they showed at the Canon EXPO would be a replacement to the EOS 5DS series.



except the products that show in the expo aren't backed by an official development / press announcement either. however the 120MP DSLR was.


----------



## Andyx01 (Mar 9, 2017)

tr573 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Light gathering is light gathering, just because each pixel has more 'noise' doesn't mean the net image will suffer. 2x2 sampling = 4 pixels gathering light to represent 1 pixel, and 120MP becomes 30.

That said; I'm baffled at Canons choice of 30.4MP on the 5D IV as opposed to 39.3MP

For those confused as to why I said that. 4K.

If you're still confused; 7680x5120 with 2:2 sampling is 3840x2560 (or 3840x2160 after the aspect ratio correction.)

I get it; 5D IV isn't meant to be focused on video; but... yeeeeah... really had to go with 30 instead of 39?

On a side-note; what ever happened to the year of the Tilt-Shift?????


----------



## tr573 (Mar 9, 2017)

Andyx01 said:


> Light gathering is light gathering, just because each pixel has more 'noise' doesn't mean the net image will suffer. 2x2 sampling = 4 pixels gathering light to represent 1 pixel, and 120MP becomes 30.



5DS/R has been out for almost 2 years, and there's still plenty of people not convinced of that. Good luck trying to talk sense into them.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 9, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'm not under NDA, but this is for fun, not to get people in trouble. An EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is coming this year, pricing hasn't been set and we don't have an exact announcement date. I'm not sure what other information people want beyond that.



Everybody, it's very much this - my wife used to work at AMD on the Xbox1 chip, and I absolutely knew things about the development of it that, if I had leaked on the gaming websites, would have been traceable to a small group of people. You just don't do it (if you're smart).


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 9, 2017)

I don't see the point of using 120 Mp on a 35mm DSLR camera. The slight vibration from the mirror slap and shutter movement would blur the image at the pixel level. Having to use mirror lockup on every shot kind of negates the reason to have a DSLR. Maybe a mirrorless studio camera would have some utility in the commercial market. I could also see some uses in robotic imaging for some manufacturing processes. How many of you have a use for such a high res camera?


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 9, 2017)

If you ever do see 120Mpx I think you'll only see that in a specialist non-DSLR body as they did with the ME20F-SH. Hardly any lenses will resolve anywhere near well enough to be of use. 

Jumping to 60mpx with dpaf makes all the sense in the world though.


----------



## RGF (Mar 9, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> I don't see the point of using 120 Mp on a 35mm DSLR camera. The slight vibration from the mirror slap and shutter movement would blur the image at the pixel level. Having to use mirror lockup on every shot kind of negates the reason to have a DSLR. Maybe a mirrorless studio camera would have some utility in the commercial market. I could also see some uses in robotic imaging for some manufacturing processes. How many of you have a use for such a high res camera?



At some point diffraction destroys resolution. I don't know the math so I can not say i will be f5.6 or something l like that. But between diffraction, slight camera vibration, less than stellar optics, ... not sure that images from a 120 MP camera would be noticeably better than 50 MP camera in all but a few limited scenarios.

Like to see Canon work on (make work) a foveon type sensor or reinvent the sensor totally to get better IQ (or effective resolution). 

Not sure that we can get much more effective resolution from existing 35mm sensor technology with a major breakthrough or reinvention.


----------



## slclick (Mar 9, 2017)

RGF said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the point of using 120 Mp on a 35mm DSLR camera. The slight vibration from the mirror slap and shutter movement would blur the image at the pixel level. Having to use mirror lockup on every shot kind of negates the reason to have a DSLR. Maybe a mirrorless studio camera would have some utility in the commercial market. I could also see some uses in robotic imaging for some manufacturing processes. How many of you have a use for such a high res camera?
> ...



I'd love a Fovean style sensor in a Canon body but what are the issues behind the shutter speed dilemmas? Sigma bodies are infamous for not being able to shoot fast.


----------



## douglaurent (Mar 9, 2017)

I've seen the 100+MP camera working at Photokina including realtime pics that were shot and did show lots of detail - half a year ago. I am sure Canon could have released such a camera tomorrow. As seen with the 4K video of the 1DC and its 4 years until it arrived in the 5D4, an endless delay created by marketing geniuses might occur. Probably they wait as long as the rest of the planet has bought medium format cameras and only half of the people are interested in it by then.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 9, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> I've seen the 100+MP camera working at Photokina including realtime pics that were shot and did show lots of detail - half a year ago. I am sure Canon could have released such a camera tomorrow. As seen with the 4K video of the 1DC and its 4 years until it arrived in the 5D4, an endless delay created by marketing geniuses might occur. Probably they wait as long as the rest of the planet has bought medium format cameras and only half of the people are interested in it by then.



I'll drive past the bile for a moment and try to speak to a Canon 'stalling' to offer 100+ MP FF sensors to the market.

I contend the Venn diagram of:


Those that absolutely need 100+ MP
Those with large amounts of money to buy _numerous_ newer / more modern lenses on day one
Those willing to change their shooting method (MLU, shutter delay, diffraction considerations, etc.) to make the most of those 100 MP

...add up to a very small market for Canon to have to rebuild (guessing) more than half of its lens portfolio for. (It probably looks like a similar value proposition for a FF shooter to altogether move to Medium Format, now that I think about it.)

I'm not saying folks don't want 100+ MP -- I'm saying it will come at a staggering 'usage cost' and investment cost for users, and given how small that resulting market is, Canon won't be in a big hurry to fully support it with new lenses. Canon will offer 100+ MP someday, but they will slowly walk up to that level as their lenses continue to be refreshed, as DIGIC horsepower improves, etc.

- A


----------



## brianftpc (Mar 9, 2017)

Canon will need to release new lenses before anyone thinks about buying the 5DsR mk2. If the current lineup can only offer 30ish mp of sharpness on 50mp then just then how much youll lose on 125mp. I hope sigma has plenty of art lenses in their inventory come 2018


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Regarding the next 5DS having 120 MP:
> 
> I would not hold your breath on that. Even if Canon holds off the 5DS / R follow up to 2019+ timeframe (as we'd expect from the 4-5 year cycles we've seen of late on FF SLRs), consider what a 120 MP rig would drive...
> 
> ...



Maybe they will start counting each half of the dual pixel. So far, no one has stooped to that kind of trickery, but the Foveon sensor specs are misleading.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 9, 2017)

*Re: EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Replacements - 60 MP*



entoman said:


> ... I think it more likely that the 5DS Mkii will have a scaled-up 80D sensor, i.e. 60MP...



I would agree. Although I would expect that by the time the 5Ds II comes out, sensor technology will have improved and it will be somewhat better than the 80D sensor. Assuming that most 5Ds owners are interested in maximum dynamic range coupled with high resolution, I expect that will be where the sensor improvements will be found.

Interestingly, that is also where the user base for the 5Ds and 7DII diverges. I expect that the 7DIII will concentrate on improved high ISO (to the extent that is possible) and give up a bit on dynamic range and possible resolution, so the 7DIII sensor could be something quite different from a scaled-down version of the 5Ds.


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 9, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > mclaren777 said:
> ...




We want to know EVERYTHING! Coma, aberrations handling, MTF, price, # of elements & groups, price, cost, but most importantly - will it make PHOTOGRAPHY GREAT AGAIN????


----------



## scyrene (Mar 9, 2017)

There's no rush, as others have said. Dependent on the type of shot, sometimes even now I'm wowed by how much detail 50MP gives you (when you're zoom limited, for instance). However, just as 50MP would have seemed ludicrous a few years ago, so I think higher MP counts will come. As for technical limitations, I've seen all sorts of opinions.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 9, 2017)

Dont know how many posting have the 5DS I do and here are my 19 months observations. 

1. As long as shutter speed is higher than say on a Canon 6D for a given focal length then Ive not seen any worse camera shake / vibration issues 
2.The pictures from a detail perspective even on lenses not listed as recommended usually appear more detailed / sharper than say again the 6D
3. The weakest atribute is dynamic range, its not a good low light camera
4. File sizes are way larger and you need to upgrade your PC or Mac
5. Lightroom and Photoshop even with newer PC / Mac is slower

a. Im not sure I would want a 120MP camera without some new compression algorithm the files sizes would be a killer
b. Dynamic range needs to be significantly better certainly at a minimum 14 stops
c. Nyquist would suggest at 120MP defraction would limit the benefits particularly for landscape shooters


----------



## scyrene (Mar 9, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Dont know how many posting have the 5DS I do and here are my 19 months observations.
> 
> 1. As long as shutter speed is higher than say on a Canon 6D for a given focal length then Ive not seen any worse camera shake / vibration issues
> 2.The pictures from a detail perspective even on lenses not listed as recommended usually appear more detailed / sharper than say again the 6D
> ...



I mostly agree with you. I think camera shake *is* more noticeable, but only viewed 100% of course, and it can be worked around (taking more shots in a burst and choosing the best, for instance). The low light performance is as good as the 5D3 when normalised (whole image/viewed at the same output size), with better sharpness, but the ISO 12800 upper limit can be tiresome, as is the lack of 1/3 stop increments above ISO 6400. File sizes are the biggest problem, especially if dealing with multiple images in focus stacks/panorama stitches. It's very computer-intensive.


----------



## mclaren777 (Mar 9, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'm not under NDA, but this is for fun, not to get people in trouble. An EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is coming this year, pricing hasn't been set and we don't have an exact announcement date. *I'm not sure what other information people want beyond that.*



I primarily want to know if it will use Canon's new BR optics technology.

That would be an incredible game-changer IMHO.


----------



## noms78 (Mar 9, 2017)

*Re: EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Replacements - 60 MP*



entoman said:


> I would also expect just a single model, with a cancellable AA filter. This tech is already being tested in the 5DMkiv, which has a user-selectable "Digital Lens Optimiser" which, among other things, cancels the effect of the AA filter.
> 
> At the moment this tech has a few bugs - using DSO in the 5DMkiv results in a 2-3 second buffer clearing time (with JPEG or RAW), rendering continuous drive useless when it is enabled. Hopefully this problem will be resolved soon with a firmware update.



Is it highly possible that DLO's "cancellable AA filter" is simply an "unsharp mask" filter with parameters decided by a software algorithm? - something you can already do in Lightroom/photoshop....


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 9, 2017)

I'm only passingly well read on diffraction, but I had a question.

I'm just curious as sensor resolution climbs and the diffraction limited aperture more and more approaches a wide-open aperture, how would landscapes work? It would seem very difficult to obtain peak sharpness given the larger DOF needs of most landscape compositions. 

This is true of landscape work in general -- even on my 5D3 my lens might be sharpest at f/5.6 but I don't hesitate to stop down to f/11 or f/14 as needed. But on a massive 100+ MP canvas, I imagine you'd be throwing out a lot more detail to make a similar decision to stop down. So what is one to do in that case? Are people going to need to focus-stack their landscapes like a product/macro photographer would?

Please educate me here, this is not my wheelhouse at all. Thx.

- A


----------



## tr573 (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I'm only passingly well read on diffraction, but I had a question.
> 
> I'm just curious as sensor resolution climbs and the diffraction limited aperture more and more approaches a wide-open aperture, how would landscapes work? It would seem very difficult to obtain peak sharpness given the larger DOF needs of most landscape compositions.
> 
> ...



You wouldn't be throwing out more resolution than you're gaining by having a 100mp sensor. Just like how if your lens performs best at f/11 but your DLA is 5.6, you're still going to get more resolution at f/11 than at 5.6

Would you get even more if you focus stscked? Sure. But even a single frame is still going to give you more than a lower res camera


----------



## tr573 (Mar 10, 2017)

*Re: EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Replacements - 60 MP*



noms78 said:


> entoman said:
> 
> 
> > I would also expect just a single model, with a cancellable AA filter. This tech is already being tested in the 5DMkiv, which has a user-selectable "Digital Lens Optimiser" which, among other things, cancels the effect of the AA filter.
> ...



It's a deconvolution function rather than unsharp mask. But not the same as a cancelled AA filter.


----------



## Act444 (Mar 10, 2017)

> Dont know how many posting have the 5DS I do and here are my 19 months observations.
> 
> 1. As long as shutter speed is higher than say on a Canon 6D for a given focal length then Ive not seen any worse camera shake / vibration issues
> 2.The pictures from a detail perspective even on lenses not listed as recommended usually appear more detailed / sharper than say again the 6D
> ...



I do too (the R version) and I agree with all except #4 - my 4 year old "run-of-the-mill" desktop seems to be able to handle the files just fine. 

1) Yes but still need to be careful, especially indoors
2) Yes - noticed with the 50 1.2 that the 5DSR was able to squeeze a little more detail out of the lens, even at 1.2 where it's typically soft. Still, to REALLY get the most out of the camera, you really need one of the newer V. II prime lenses. 
3) The DR hasn't been an issue for me but it definitely is _not_ a low-light camera. That being said, with a quality lens I'm not afraid to push the ISO to its max of 6400 b/c even at that setting, the detail is still high enough that you can increase noise reduction and obtain an image that more closely matches the output of a 5D3 and it won't be mush!
5) RAW-JPG image conversion is noticeably slower with 5DSR files than with either 5D3 or 5D4 files, but honestly I don't notice a huge difference when actively working on them...

_____________

120MP would be pure overkill. 50MP is crazy enough, but I can't think of any lens that would resolve anywhere near 120MP or whether such a camera would be handholdable (using non-IS and older IS lenses), etc.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2017)

tr573 said:


> You wouldn't be throwing out more resolution than you're gaining by having a 100mp sensor. Just like how if your lens performs best at f/11 but your DLA is 5.6, you're still going to get more resolution at f/11 on a higher MP rig than at 5.6 on a lower MP rig
> 
> Would you get even more if you focus stscked? Sure. But even a single frame is still going to give you more than a lower res camera



Just clarifying your comment above (see in red) -- did I get that right?

- A


----------



## Diko (Mar 10, 2017)

Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, "Tilting" touchscreen, Higher ISO and DR. 

No need of DPAF on such a body. 

Better to improve those wells on the pixels instead of increasing them. 60 MPs (at most) whereby no FF DSLR lense can't possibly cover them.

Have used one and wanted to cry when zooming and seeing the results :/ 

Glass has a long way to go. On the pther hand the noise and DR are the usual suspects. Let Canon concetrate on the wells's electrions gathering efficiency, better.


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 10, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not under NDA, but this is for fun, not to get people in trouble. An EF 85mm f/1.4L IS is coming this year, pricing hasn't been set and we don't have an exact announcement date. I'm not sure what other information people want beyond that.
> ...



we just learned: you are smart!


----------



## tr573 (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn't be throwing out more resolution than you're gaining by having a 100mp sensor. Just like how if your lens performs best at f/11 but your DLA is 5.6, you're still going to get more resolution at f/11 on a higher MP rig than at 5.6 on a lower MP rig
> ...



No, both on the high res rig for that example (although it would be higher than the low res rig also). If the imaginary lens keeps increasing in resolution until f/11 , then that increase means you're resolving more there even with diffraction then you would where the lens is weaker. (Of course, no modern lens peaks at f/11 just an imaginary example) 

I'm just saying that if you are getting increases in resolution from the lens still or from a higher resolution sensor, it's outweighing the effects of diffraction which are minor in comparison. 

So you're never going to do worse with a high resolution sensor - you can go to extremes to eke out every ounce of performance , but even if you don't you're still going to get more resolution out of it.


----------



## kbmelb (Mar 10, 2017)

Hope they keep AA filter. I found the moire on the 5DsR to be unbearable. Very happy with 5Ds though.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 10, 2017)

Sony has rumored to be announcing two pro A9 bodies. One is rumored to be 20MP and shoot around 20FPS. The other is rumored to be around 70MP?

Now the thing is with cramming more pixels into the same 35mm wafer is that there is a point with current CMOS tech is that it starts to hinder performance more then it helps. (Just to keep things simple and not get into SNR, diffraction and so on)

But Canon could easily make a 62MP sensor using the same pixel pitch as the 80D (24MP x 1.6 + 24MP = 62.4) and it would perform in every way the same as the 80D just on a larger wafer. Even a 70MP isn't to far fetched in the next two years.
But something like 250MP would be horridness and not usable due to camera shake and diffraction cause by the atmosphere its self. This is why even Med Format does not go above 100MP at the moment. It becomes a point where more is not helping and its better for focus on quality other then quantity. 

That said. There is no reason to release a new 5DSR this year or even next year unless Sony forces Canon's hand marketing wise. But it would be nice if they did in announce an update...


----------



## Joakim (Mar 10, 2017)

*Re: EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Replacements - 60 MP*



entoman said:


> I would also expect just a single model, with a cancellable AA filter. This tech is already being tested in the 5DMkiv, which has a user-selectable "Digital Lens Optimiser" which, among other things, cancels the effect of the AA filter.



This is the first time i hear this.

I thought an AA filter was a physical mesh in front of the sensor. Does the "Digital Lens Optimiser" do a software edit to the photos and emulate the lack of an AA filter?


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 10, 2017)

*Re: EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Replacements - 60 MP*



Joakim said:


> entoman said:
> 
> 
> > I would also expect just a single model, with a cancellable AA filter. This tech is already being tested in the 5DMkiv, which has a user-selectable "Digital Lens Optimiser" which, among other things, cancels the effect of the AA filter.
> ...



Yes it is, in that the AA filter is physically in front of the sensor, and no amount of software can remove it. All DLO does is add some sharpening to counter the AA filter softness.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 10, 2017)

80D (24MP x 1.6 + 24MP = 62.4)

you did the math wrong, but by luck the result is almost correct 

24MP x 1.2^2=61.44MP


----------



## Joakim (Mar 10, 2017)

*Re: EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Replacements - 60 MP*



IglooEater said:


> Yes it is, in that the AA filter is physically in front of the sensor, and no amount of software can remove it. All DLO does is add some sharpening to counter the AA filter softness.



Thanks for the explanation.

Will the same and/or better results be had from just sharpening in Lightroom instead?


----------



## tr573 (Mar 10, 2017)

*Re: EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Replacements - 60 MP*



Joakim said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it is, in that the AA filter is physically in front of the sensor, and no amount of software can remove it. All DLO does is add some sharpening to counter the AA filter softness.
> ...



Depends if you're asking a DPP fan or not. ACR offers deconvolution, but DLO is more lens-customized instead of generic. That's what a DPP fan will tell you. 

ACR lets you mask it so you don't add nine tons of sharp noise to Oof areas of your photo is what ACR fans will tell you. 

Use what you like best


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 10, 2017)

hendrik-sg said:


> 80D (24MP x 1.6 + 24MP = 62.4)
> 
> you did the math wrong, but by luck the result is almost correct
> 
> 24MP x 1.2^2=61.44MP



My head hurts looking at this.. LOL


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2017)

hendrik-sg said:


> 80D (24MP x 1.6 + 24MP = 62.4)
> 
> you did the math wrong, but by luck the result is almost correct
> 
> 24MP x *1.2*^2=61.44MP


Actually it's 24MP x 1.6^2  

But on practical purposes I do hope that at least they will not go higher than that.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 10, 2017)

*Re: EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Replacements - 60 MP*



IglooEater said:


> Joakim said:
> 
> 
> > entoman said:
> ...



that's not true at all.

an AA filter's effect can be mathematically removed via iteration via deconvolution while not perfect, it is certainly not just "sharpening".


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I'm only passingly well read on diffraction, but I had a question.
> 
> I'm just curious as sensor resolution climbs and the diffraction limited aperture more and more approaches a wide-open aperture, how would landscapes work? It would seem very difficult to obtain peak sharpness given the larger DOF needs of most landscape compositions.
> 
> ...



landscape is never all about sharpness, but also more accuracy. a 100mp image is more accurate than a 30mp image, regardless of aperture.

the judgement of sharpness and the effect of diffraction depends on the magnification of sensor to image size. in other words, how big of a print you can print, before diffraction airy disc is larger than the airy disc of confusion of an out of focus zone.

in other words, diffraction is only an issue when we perceive it to show "out of focus". however, as one prints larger, or views larger, their observer distance also increases. it makes f/8 shooting and even f/16 shooting extremely resilient to diffraction, because the bigger you display, the greater the observer distance, and the greater the observer distance the bigger the airy disc of diffraction can be.

there's alot of false myths surrounding diffraction and images that sound quite impressive, but per line pair diffraction is hardly ever that important unless all you do is view your images magnified 100% on the monitor and it's usually false sharpness, as a carry over from square pixels demosaiced from a bayer sensor pattern.

as far as "full benefit of the resolution" you ALWAYS get the full effect of the resolution regardless of diffraction - as you increase resolution, you decrease false pixel sharpness and increase image acutance. two different things.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 10, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> 3. The weakest atribute is dynamic range, its not a good low light camera
> 4. File sizes are way larger and you need to upgrade your PC or Mac
> 5. Lightroom and Photoshop even with newer PC / Mac is slower
> 
> ...





4/5 .. i regularly edit and process 1.2GB TIFF's with out any issuses on a fairly modern platform. if someone gets a new camera, without conversly updating their "image processing" pipeline, than that's their own priorites, however the two always should be lock step. I think your mac has a problem if it can't process normal raws more than fast enough today.

a. that would go right against 4/5 .. and make editing,etc slower...
b. lol minimum 14EV? yeah. okay.
c. not really. nyquist has little involvement in landscape photography. if it did, we may as well shoot with smartphones that are f/16 and nothing else. image sharpness and per pixel sharpness (usually false sharpness) are two different things. people confuse the two.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 10, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> If you ever do see 120Mpx I think you'll only see that in a specialist non-DSLR body as they did with the ME20F-SH. Hardly any lenses will resolve anywhere near well enough to be of use.
> 
> Jumping to 60mpx with dpaf makes all the sense in the world though.



except they already stated it will be a DSLR.....


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Those willing to change their shooting method (MLU, shutter delay, diffraction considerations, etc.) to make the most of those 100 MP



there's hardly any difference in shooting conditions necessary to jump from 50 to 120MP. it's 1.54x the linear resolution, which is less than one 1EV shutter speed difference. also any lens, any apeture will always show the benefit of 120mp over 50.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Regarding the next 5DS having 120 MP:
> 
> I would not hold your breath on that. Even if Canon holds off the 5DS / R follow up to 2019+ timeframe (as we'd expect from the 4-5 year cycles we've seen of late on FF SLRs), consider what a 120 MP rig would drive...
> 
> ...



this is simply not true at all. there's so much wrong with this.

a) canon doesn't have to hold to any timeline, it all depends on whether or not canon has a updated sensor and appropriate DIGIC. they've stated this many times. they upgrade when they can provide an upgrade. the sensor is out, the DIGIC is done. they stated it was a) in development in 2015. a DSLR takes 3 years to develop. Do the math. 

b) canon already stated 60 lenses are compatible with the upcoming 120MP camera. any lens will work on a 120mp camera that works on a lower resolving sensor.

c) DIGIC 7 is already north of 210MP / sec on a single chip on a power / heat enveloped restrained EOS-M5. The current 5Ds is a generation of digic old - this is just ridiculous fearmongering or assumptions that canon can't increase the bitrate 2.5 times. especially considering they stated that DIGIC 7 was 17 times faster than DIGIC 6.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> a) canon doesn't have to hold to any timeline, it all depends on whether or not canon has a updated sensor and appropriate DIGIC. they've stated this many times. they upgrade when they can provide an upgrade. the sensor is out, the DIGIC is done. they stated it was a) in development in 2015. a DSLR takes 3 years to develop. Do the math.
> 
> b) canon already stated 60 lenses are compatible with the upcoming 120MP camera. any lens will work on a 120mp camera that works on a lower resolving sensor.
> 
> c) DIGIC 7 is already north of 210MP / sec on a single chip on a power / heat enveloped restrained EOS-M5. The current 5Ds is a generation of digic old - this is just ridiculous fearmongering or assumptions that canon can't increase the bitrate 2.5 times. especially considering they stated that DIGIC 7 was 17 times faster than DIGIC 6.



a) Yes, because Canon is famous for releasing bleeding edge tech as soon as it can be commercialized. :

b) I've seen that statement, yes, but even looking at 50 MP vs. 22 MP comparisons of Canon's current lineup (check PZ, DXO) shows that the EF portfolio is certainly _rewarded_ by more resolving power behind the lens, but few (if any) lenses sail over a 50 MP bar and ask "Is that all you've got?". I think a claim of 60 lenses being compatible -- even from Canon directly -- is wishful thinking, clever marketing, etc.

c) Let's step past component performance and jump to overall camera throughput. I've plotted the highest throughput rigs Canon sells over time, and the trend is hardly consistent with a 600 MP/s future needed to get back to the 5 fps 5DS users enjoy today.

Again -- _I'm not doubting they are working on a 120 MP rig_. I just don't think it's the 5DS2. I believe a > 100 MP rig will be later down the road.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > a) canon doesn't have to hold to any timeline, it all depends on whether or not canon has a updated sensor and appropriate DIGIC. they've stated this many times. they upgrade when they can provide an upgrade. the sensor is out, the DIGIC is done. they stated it was a) in development in 2015. a DSLR takes 3 years to develop. Do the math.
> ...



a) that's an official and legally binding statement from Canon. you simply don't spout that off and not do it. it was VERY specific that it was active IN development, not GOING to be in development.

b) you don't comprehend that ANY lens will show a benefit. lens performance such as with diffraction depends on your sensor to image magnification, not your pixel density.

c) dual digic 7's should be able to hit around 400+ MP/second with the same heat envelope of the M5 - which takes it over your 2.1fps handily. Canon has stated that DIGIC 7 is 17 times faster than DIGIC 6. Dual DIGIC 6's are able to achieve 252MP/sec. Also we dont' know the top end of the DIGIC 6+ - we can assume it's somewhere around 210MP, of which the DIGIC 7 (normal) has already surpassed that. We dont' know the top end of DIGIC 7 yet.

again, if they are working on it, if it's in development then it's coming out in 3 years time or so from Sept 2015. Do the math.


----------



## tr573 (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> b) I've seen that statement, yes, but even looking at 50 MP vs. 22 MP comparisons of Canon's current lineup (check PZ, DXO) shows that the EF portfolio is certainly _rewarded_ by more resolving power behind the lens, but few (if any) lenses sail over a 50 MP bar and ask "Is that all you've got?". I think a claim of 60 lenses being compatible -- even from Canon directly -- is wishful thinking, clever marketing, etc.



I don't think this is a valid way to look at it because (hear me out) - even the lenses which come the closest (new sigma 85mm art score a 40 "pmpix" score on DXO) still also fall short of the total megapixel count of much lower resolution cameras for the same score. So I think there's more to it than just saying "this lens can't handle 50mpix as it is" , because it also can't handle 30, or 22, or 20, on a 5DIV,3,etc. Despite handling 40 on a 5DSR


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> b) you don't comprehend that ANY lens will show a benefit. lens performance such as with diffraction depends on your sensor to image magnification, not your pixel density.



I fully understand that even mediocre lenses will show a benefit from a higher resolution sensor, yes. But some 22 to 50 MP comparisons show that _the degree to which a lens improves_ on the 50 MP canvas can vary quite a bit. On the 'lemon' lens tested at LR -- a beat up 50 f/1.4 USM -- it improved on the 50 MP sensor but not nearly as dramatically as the other higher quality lenses they tested.

And DXO, PZ would back that up. Some lenses that look quite good at 22 MP tend to show their age once they step up to 50 MP. 

And to tr573's comment, I hear you -- I'm not saying any lens that 'only' scores 40 / 50 at DXO will be a train wreck at a higher resolution. Hardly! But some lenses that are up for 22 MP work but will not look much better than that on a higher resolution sensor, say an old 17-40L as an example (which did not make the cut for the 5DS recommended list). The same thing will be true in comparing lenses considered good enough for 50 MP work that won't do much better on a 120 MP sensor.

- A


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 10, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> I don't see the point of using 120 Mp on a 35mm DSLR camera. (...) How many of you have a use for such a high res camera?


When did thousends of uers decide they needed a 3 MPIX camera, 5 MPIX camera, 8 MPIX camera, 10 MPIX camera, 12 MPIX camera, 15 MPIX camera, 18 MPIX camera, 20 MPIX camera .... 50 MPIX camera?

When they could see they could do more, better with more MPIX.

But I understand you are still shooting 3 MPIX?

I'll probably stand in line for having a chance to jump to 120 MPIX goodness.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > b) you don't comprehend that ANY lens will show a benefit. lens performance such as with diffraction depends on your sensor to image magnification, not your pixel density.
> ...



again, no, you totally miss the point.

resolution is never the problem, the resultant image size is a problem. if you display a 50mp image on a 30" print and a 100MP image on a 30" print, it doesn't matter, the 100MP image will look better. each lens has an effective magnification ratio, where if you increase the image magnification beyond that, you will see signs of stress. it has nothing to do with pixel density. assuming a flat brick wall image, it entirely depends on where the loss of resolution is greater than the perceived circle of confusion and is visibly apparent as you move from areas of the image to other areas.

viewing at 100% magnification is not objective, nor does it even make sense and is most certainly not even real world.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 10, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the point of using 120 Mp on a 35mm DSLR camera. (...) How many of you have a use for such a high res camera?
> ...



I agree that more Mpix are better, in there own right than less. While you have to admit that any average user can benefit from an upgrade from 3 MPIX, the upgrade from 50 to 120 is less compelling. Firstly, because it is a smaller upgrade, (only 2.1x more pixels instead of almost 7X more), and also because an actual use of the extra pixels demands a more specialized application such as heavy cropping, extreme print sizes, etc.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 10, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > BeenThere said:
> ...



every print size will benefit from more Mp's unless you believe that oversampling does not lead to more accurate results.

I recall when canon back in the middle of the 2000's suggested that 60+MP cameras are achievable and canon would be doing them, and the internet world cried that there's no need for such MP's .. and that no one would be able to see the difference of said MP's... 

Even if you only print 30x20" prints (which are probably the max for most people), each pixel being printed is oversampled the more MP's you have to work with. that's more accurate color and less noise, and less false sharpness.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 10, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> Even if you only print 30x20" prints (which are probably the max for most people), each pixel being printed is oversampled the more MP's you have to work with. that's more accurate color and less noise, and less false sharpness.



A 20x30" print would probably be viewed from around ~3ft (the diagonal of the print) or farther. For that viewing distance, you could print it at 180 DPI. So you'd need 20 * 30 * 180^2 = 19.5 MPIX, possibly less.


----------



## Diko (Mar 10, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> b) canon already stated 60 lenses are compatible with the upcoming 120MP camera. any lens will work on a 120mp camera that works on a lower resolving sensor.



By "any" - you are right. They said that. But how satisfactory the results would be. 

Currently I don't want to shoot with 24-70L 2.8, since I can see with my eyes the difference on a regular 30MPish 5D4. The first version of that awesome lense delivers a visible blur. And that is after focus-calibration.

On the other hand the 70-200 2.8 L2 and Sigma 50 ART are completely other story. Recently haven't tested the 5Ds with the above mentioned, but pretty pretty sure I will not like the 24-70 any more. Waiting for some real reviews on the new Sigma 24-70 2.8 and back to back with the 24-70 2.8 Mark 2 from Canon.



ExodistPhotography said:


> ...But something like 250MP would be horridness and not usable due to camera shake and diffraction cause by the atmosphere its self. This is why even Med Format does not go above 100MP at the moment. It becomes a point where more is not helping and its better for focus on quality other then quantity. ..



R sure about that? I mean MF not going above 100MPs? 

I support the idea that there's no glass out there to support that many MPs on FF.


----------



## symmar22 (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I'm only passingly well read on diffraction, but I had a question.
> 
> I'm just curious as sensor resolution climbs and the diffraction limited aperture more and more approaches a wide-open aperture, how would landscapes work? It would seem very difficult to obtain peak sharpness given the larger DOF needs of most landscape compositions.
> 
> ...



I work as an architecture and interiors photographer, and my experience with my 5DSr has removed all fears I had before. I use f11 to f18 - f20 on most of my pictures, and the sharpness just blows out my 5D2 at equivalent apertures. Diffraction is overrated IMO, when you need the f-stop, you just use it. A slightly OOF part of the image will be much more disturbing than a minor softness all over the picture. I did not replace any lens out of my collection, the sensor just seems to add resolution to all of them. You should avoid to stop down past f22, but that was already the case with my Nikon F4 in the film era.

There is a difference between pixel peeping for a hobby and actual work.

On top of that, for those who still wonder, I get much less moiré than I did with my 5D2, and much less noise as well since most of the final images are a bit down sampled anyway (few clients need actual 50Mp files), but the files are much cleaner on the 5DSr to begin with.

I did not change my way of working (tripod and live view), so the comparison is fair. The technical quality of my production has clearly improved with the new camera.

As a side note, I wonder how I could work with a blurry AA filter before, I hope the next iteration of the 5DS will be without any filter at all (for my type of work, one of the drawback of Canon cameras is the AA filters that are quite strong, and in my opinion do more damage to sharpness than stopping down to f11, and when you have strong moiré like fabrics, they are useless anyway).

Yes I would love a more modern equivalent sensor with more DR (on chip ADC) and less noise, but there is no hurry.

Finally, the only drawback is the slower editing time in LR and PS, but the bigger image allows more precise Photoshop retouching, when you deal at pixel level.


----------



## Cthulhu (Mar 10, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Even if you only print 30x20" prints (which are probably the max for most people), each pixel being printed is oversampled the more MP's you have to work with. that's more accurate color and less noise, and less false sharpness.
> ...



This discussion makes me wonder if folks claiming you can't see the need for more mp have actually shot with a 5ds(r). It breathes new life into ANY lens I put in front of it. I tried one for a week and was never able to pick up my 5d3 again.
The image size alone is awe inspiring, excellent for cropping and prints. Sure you can print with less MP, but you will definitely be able to tell the difference. 

As for camera shake, shooting a 5dsr is not any harder than shooting a 7dmk2 - which is to say not hard at all.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> As for camera shake, shooting a 5dsr is not any harder than shooting a 7dmk2 - which is to say not hard at all.



Curious, has anyone ever done a hit-rate study on camera shake, best practice minimum shutter speed rules, etc. with 22MP vs. 50 MP?

I keep hearing motion will more harshly punish you on a higher resolution sensor, but has anyone ever shown how much this really matters? Do you need a different 1/FL rule for higher resolution sensors?

Have no idea on this, please let me know your thoughts.

- A


----------



## tr573 (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > As for camera shake, shooting a 5dsr is not any harder than shooting a 7dmk2 - which is to say not hard at all.
> ...



It's more that the more you magnify the image , the more motion will punish you. So if you're viewing a 22mp vs 50mp image both taken on 135 format sensors, both printed at 13x19, no difference. Same magnification.

But look at them on screen @ 100%, the 50mp image is magnified more, and you see the difference. 

20MP APS-C vs 20MP 135 , you'll see the difference even in the print example, because the print from the APS-C sensor is magnified more.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 10, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



There's a difference between *need* and *benefits from* higher resolution.



Cthulhu said:


> It breathes new life into ANY lens I put in front of it.



I'll bet that any includes only the sharper lenses with EF mount.



Cthulhu said:


> The image size alone is awe inspiring, excellent for cropping and prints. Sure you can print with less MP, but you will definitely be able to tell the difference.



Question is whether the difference I'll get with the lenses I have is worth the money.

I'm sure I'll get more details with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, I doubt I'll get anything with the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

Personally, I'd rather invest my money in upgrading my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mk2 to mk3.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 10, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Even if you only print 30x20" prints (which are probably the max for most people), each pixel being printed is oversampled the more MP's you have to work with. that's more accurate color and less noise, and less false sharpness.
> ...



around yes, you do want to get around 200-300 dpi though for images, meaning that the 5Ds currently overs around 1:1 to 1:2 sampling for inspection. The 120MP version would oversample more. oversampling is a good thing.

however, your shutter speed (shake, motion,etc), lenses and your aperture is set by the print size, not by the amount of oversample.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 10, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



for sure, because the more Mp's the more you can oversample. those images will have better accuracy, tonality, less noise and better image acutance. Per pixel may look worse, but that's not the point.


----------



## Cthulhu (Mar 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > As for camera shake, shooting a 5dsr is not any harder than shooting a 7dmk2 - which is to say not hard at all.
> ...



Pixel density is the matter. The 7dmk2 and 5dsr have practically the same pixel density. 

Canon recommends 1/1.6fl for APSC and 1/2fl for the 5dsr. I shoot both the same as I shot my 5dmk3 and have had no issues.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Canon recommends 1/1.6fl for APSC and 1/2fl for the 5dsr. I shoot both the same as I shot my 5dmk3 and have had no issues.



Thank you -- had no idea Canon went on record about this.

For those who shoot auto ISO _and_ set their shutter speed to auto (I recognize that's a small slice of us), I'm curious, do those 1/(1.6*FL) and 1/(2*FL) rules play out on the camera? Did Canon weave their guidance above into the camera's decision making processes?

- A


----------



## Cthulhu (Mar 10, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Anybody benefits from higher resolution - on a 5dsr you can print larger, with more detail, you can downsample and appear sharper or you can do extreme crops and still have perfectly detailed images, basically doubling your lens reach. 

As for your bet, you'd lose:

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


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 10, 2017)

"Resolution, in line-pairs per distance, that can be achieved with a digital sensor is strongly constrained by the photosite frequency of the sensor. Even in the absence of blur from diffraction and lens aberrations, the highest line-pair frequency than can be obtained with high contrast will be only about one-fourth the photosite frequency. Therefore, resolution results reported in lens tests should be evaluated in light of the photosite frequency of the camera sensor. Maximum MTF50 resolutions that are substantially less than one-fourth the photosite frequency are suggestive of lens-limited systems. On the other hand, a maximum MTF50 resolution that is about one-fourth the photosite frequency is suggestive of a sensor-limited system. In order to refine the analysis, it is necessary to consider the effects of diffraction on contrast"


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 10, 2017)

"To add to the previous post we designed lenses for high end motion picture with strict photo site size tolerance" Thats not to say they cannot be used outside of this tolerance but they will not produce maximum resolution. Aberrations, motion blur and contrast will all affect apparent sharpness and lab test conditions are rarely achievable in the field.


----------



## RGF (Mar 11, 2017)

slclick said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > BeenThere said:
> ...



Do you mean FPS or minimum shutter speed such as 1/8000 of second?


----------



## RGF (Mar 11, 2017)

scyrene said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Dont know how many posting have the 5DS I do and here are my 19 months observations.
> ...



Don't know the detailed math but I suspect that unless you are pushing the resolution of a 30 MP camera, there will little difference in the IQ between 30 and 50 MP camera with similar camera shake. The shake will cause similar blurring in the image.


----------



## RGF (Mar 11, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Sony has rumored to be announcing two pro A9 bodies. One is rumored to be 20MP and shoot around 20FPS. The other is rumored to be around 70MP?



Love to see an 8K video camera. Would give us 32 - 32 MP stills ;D Of course at 60 FPS that would be a lot of stuff to go through.

:-X


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 11, 2017)

tron said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > 80D (24MP x 1.6 + 24MP = 62.4)
> ...



That does look a lot better.. I spent an hour trying to figure out "1.2" ratio until my head started hurting. LOL


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ............
> 
> I fully understand that even mediocre lenses will show a benefit from a higher resolution sensor, yes. But some 22 to 50 MP comparisons show that _the degree to which a lens improves_ on the 50 MP canvas can vary quite a bit. On the 'lemon' lens tested at LR -- a beat up 50 f/1.4 USM -- it improved on the 50 MP sensor but not nearly as dramatically as the other higher quality lenses they tested.
> 
> ...



Exactly.. 



This is one of the reasons I fully believe at this point in time Canon and anyone else for that matter should not focus on high MP then say 50 or 60MP on a 35mm camera. But instead focus on improving the quality of the images. Like improving the dynamic range to 14 stops or better, increasing the bit depth from 14 to 16bit, improving SNR of the sensors photosites (pixels). Focus on improving the AA filter so that it keeps false color out while still allowing excellent sharpness without introducing moire. Stuff like that.. This would highly improve a camera sensors more then just bumping up the MP..


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 11, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure I'll get more details with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, I doubt I'll get anything with the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.
> ...



Looking at photozone's review of the 24-105mm mkII, which - IQ wise - is very close to the mkI, the corner improves somewhere between negligible at the ends of the zoom range (same as for the 50mm f/1.4 in the Lens Rental review) and 33% where the lens is sharpest - 40mm f/8.

Getting 33% at best, nothing at worst, doesn't look like such a big win.


----------



## PHOTOPROROCKIES (Mar 11, 2017)

slclick said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > BeenThere said:
> ...



They're also very poor with high iso's. I know someone that bought the new sigma quattro h and he loves it, says ISO 100-400 it takes better images than anything he owns and the man is filthy rich, he owns a full x-series system, owns plenty pentax cameras, nikon, and sony. There isn't much he doesn't own. But if you go anything 800 and above he says it operates very poorly.


----------



## Cthulhu (Mar 12, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Apples to oranges. A 50 1.4 is practically worst case scenario on a 5dsr, and the difference between a 5dmk3 and a 5dsr is much bigger than a 24-105 1 vs 2.

I am very much looking forward to a 5ds(r) 2, I highly recommend you try one so you can speak from experience.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 12, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at photozone's review of the 24-105mm mkII, which - IQ wise - is very close to the mkI, the corner improves somewhere between negligible at the ends of the zoom range (same as for the 50mm f/1.4 in the Lens Rental review) and 33% where the lens is sharpest - 40mm f/8.
> ...



As the photozone review shows, the 24-105mm f/4 corners at the ends (24mm & 105mm) gain negligible (<5%) improvement with 50MP sensor.

Just like the 50mm f/1.4's corners.

I would benefit if I used it around it's sweet spot, from 35-70mm closing the aperture a stop or two, limiting me to about what I had with my old Minolta Dynax film camera's kit lens.

I like the 24-105mm because of it's focal length range, and I use it often at both ends, so thanks, but I'd rather spend my money on new lenses.


----------



## Diko (Mar 13, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> ...But something like 250MP would be horridness and not usable due to camera shake and diffraction cause by the atmosphere its self. This is why even Med Format does not go above 100MP at the moment. It becomes a point where more is not helping and its better for focus on quality other then quantity. ..



R sure about that? I mean MF not going above 100MPs?


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 13, 2017)

Diko said:


> ExodistPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > ...But something like 250MP would be horridness and not usable due to camera shake and diffraction cause by the atmosphere its self. This is why even Med Format does not go above 100MP at the moment. It becomes a point where more is not helping and its better for focus on quality other then quantity. ..
> ...



+1. MF will continue to increase resolution, as will FF, APS-C, and so on. I have yet to see the definitive thesis that says 'after 100 MP, you are wasting your time because of (insert reason here).'

Photographers hate to hear what they do or don't need ("you'll never see any advantage over a 20 MP rig", "you'd need to print billboard-sized to appreciate that", "hard drives are _expensive_", etc.) -- _they know their needs_ and for some folks, resolution is top of the list. 

As far as too high a resolution creating new problems, for those that wish to pursue it, they just need to adapt to what all that resolution needs to shine. That might mean getting lenses of a higher quality, that might mean changing our 1/FL sort of rules for handheld shutter speed, that might mean buying larger hard drives, etc. 

It also might mean that manufacturers need to give us new tech to deliver on the promise of all those pixels, like what Canon did with shutter delay on the 5DS.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 13, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


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



you do all of that by increasing the MP's.. :


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 13, 2017)

tr573 said:


> I don't think this is a valid way to look at it because (hear me out) - even the lenses which come the closest (new sigma 85mm art score a 40 "pmpix" score on DXO) still also fall short of the total megapixel count of much lower resolution cameras for the same score. So I think there's more to it than just saying "this lens can't handle 50mpix as it is" , because it also can't handle 30, or 22, or 20, on a 5DIV,3,etc. Despite handling 40 on a 5DSR



You should be aware that the DXO score is for a given sensor, and as the number of photosites increases, so does the mpix score. Its not a lens property, but a lens plus sensor property and only good for a particular lens in conjunction with a particular sensor.

This illustrates why DXO scores are criticized so much, they don't really tell you anything about a lens or about how it might perform on a future sensor. And, they confuse people.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 14, 2017)

I would encourage those interested in Nyquist, line pairs per mm and pixel pitch read some of the papers Schneider Optics put out they pretty much sum it up.


----------



## tr573 (Mar 14, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think this is a valid way to look at it because (hear me out) - even the lenses which come the closest (new sigma 85mm art score a 40 "pmpix" score on DXO) still also fall short of the total megapixel count of much lower resolution cameras for the same score. So I think there's more to it than just saying "this lens can't handle 50mpix as it is" , because it also can't handle 30, or 22, or 20, on a 5DIV,3,etc. Despite handling 40 on a 5DSR
> ...



Correct, which is why I'm saying that using them to decide "this lens barely handles 50MP, so how could it handle 100" is a flawed premise. Because one could have said "it barely handles 23, how is it going to handle 50" before the 5DS duo came out, and then lo and behold...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 14, 2017)

tr573 said:


> Correct, which is why I'm saying that using them to decide "this lens barely handles 50MP, so how could it handle 100" is a flawed premise. Because one could have said "it barely handles 23, how is it going to handle 50" before the 5DS duo came out, and then lo and behold...



We're stuck quoting DXO for resolution as they appear to be the only show in town that systematically re-tests things when a new sensor comes out. (I hate that, btw -- I trust them as far as I can throw them.)

40/50 (in their parlance) is actually a very strong result -- only 5 lenses in total have cleared that bar in the EF mount. The notion that "not getting a full score = the lens isn't 'rated' for the sensor" is absurd, I hear you.



Take the 35L II, a lens that scores an 18/22 on a 5D3 and a 37/50 on a 5DS would certainly appear to be a lens that would fare well on a yet higher resolution sensor, i.e. that lens has not 'peaked' and will certainly do better than 37/75 on a future 75MP sensor.


But the 50 f/1.4 USM, a lens that scores a 17/22 on a 5D3 and only pulls in a 22/50 on a 5DS, may indeed be plateauing to the point that such a lens won't benefit nearly as much from a higher resolution sensor, and that falls right in line with what Roger at LR was showing with his first 50 MP comparisons: the 50 f/1.4 USM only saw a tiny bump in final output on the 5DS and 5DS R versus what better lenses experienced.

So, begrudgingly [throw up in mouth sound] I think DXO -- as battered bias-wise and method-wise as they are -- does offer value to generate some high-level / crude insights for how future-proofed your glass might be. 

- A


----------



## tr573 (Mar 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > Correct, which is why I'm saying that using them to decide "this lens barely handles 50MP, so how could it handle 100" is a flawed premise. Because one could have said "it barely handles 23, how is it going to handle 50" before the 5DS duo came out, and then lo and behold...
> ...



So here's the other problem with that (I know, it just keeps on coming  ) - Those numbers (as far as I know) are for wide open performance. Which we know, is quite dismal on the 50/1.4. BUT, you stop that lens down , f/4-f/8 and it resolves about as much as you could want. This is pretty much the case for any of the simple double gauss lenses (The 50/1.2 as an exception) - wide open performance suffers from such a simple under-corrected design, but stopped down they are remarkably sharp across the whole frame. 

Which means that in that zone, you'll still reap benefits from higher resolution sensors.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 14, 2017)

tr573 said:


> So here's the other problem with that (I know, it just keeps on coming  ) - Those numbers (as far as I know) are for wide open performance. Which we know, is quite dismal on the 50/1.4. BUT, you stop that lens down , f/4-f/8 and it resolves about as much as you could want. This is pretty much the case for any of the simple double gauss lenses (The 50/1.2 as an exception) - wide open performance suffers from such a simple under-corrected design, but stopped down they are remarkably sharp across the whole frame.
> 
> Which means that in that zone, you'll still reap benefits from higher resolution sensors.



Actually: "The DxOMark resolution score shows sharpness performance of a lens-camera combination averaged over its entire focal length and aperture ranges."

This came up rather famously in how they declared the 35L II to be less sharp than the 35 Art (on the 5D3 at the time) when their tests showed them to be all but identical sharpness-wise. Upon further review, the fact the 35L II stopped down to f/22 while the Art only stopped down to f/16 was the sole difference -- the f/22 results for the 35L II pulled down the average.

Again, a single sharpness score for a lens is in itself somewhat inane, so I only use DXO for the really high-level read on how resolution may / may not be rewarded with the lens in question.

- A


----------



## tr573 (Mar 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Actually: "The DxOMark resolution score shows sharpness performance of a lens-camera combination averaged over its entire focal length and aperture ranges."
> 
> This came up rather famously in how they declared the 35L II to be less sharp than the 35 Art (on the 5D3 at the time) when their tests showed them to be all but identical sharpness-wise. Upon further review, the fact the 35L II stopped down to f/22 while the Art only stopped down to f/16 was the sole difference -- the f/22 results for the 35L II pulled down the average.
> 
> ...



That is so astoundingly dumb.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 20, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> I would encourage those interested in Nyquist, line pairs per mm and pixel pitch read some of the papers Schneider Optics put out they pretty much sum it up.



unless they consider observer distance and sensor magnification they are about as useful as yesterday's used toilet paper.

Of course they want to tell you that the sharpest glass, is ABSOLUTELY necessary - it's in their best interests.

however it's not, unless - you are reaching the ends of resolving power because of a) extreme cropping b) extreme image magnification with unrealistic observer distances.

otherwise common sense would tell you that unless you are at the extreme boundaries from above, you are simply oversampling. if you are oversampling, you are improving your "image" quality and letting the idiots worry about how a 7 foot wide print would look from 18 inches away on their monitor, because you don't care.


----------



## M_S (May 9, 2017)

Any news on the 5dSR Mark 2?


----------



## Sporgon (May 9, 2017)

I wonder, just out of curiosity, if the 5Ds and the 5DIV were the same price, who'd buy the 5Ds ?


----------



## ahsanford (May 9, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder, just out of curiosity, if the 5Ds and the 5DIV were the same price, who'd buy the 5Ds ?



People who prioritize detail over bleeding edge AF, over high ISO performance, over high fps shooting, etc.. That's a wide swath of photographers.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder, just out of curiosity, if the 5Ds and the 5DIV were the same price, who'd buy the 5Ds ?



The 5D MkIV is what stopped me buying a 5DSr, I want that sensor IQ and the MP. I waited and waited for new sensor tech and now it is here I can't understand why anybody would buy a 6D, 5D MkIII, or a 5DS/r at this point.


----------



## ahsanford (May 9, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder, just out of curiosity, if the 5Ds and the 5DIV were the same price, who'd buy the 5Ds ?
> ...



Because they lack $3500 in their pocket.

Because they care less about on-chip ADC hotness than they do about detail.

Because they want an interchangeable focusing screen for manually focused lenses.

Because they don't shoot video.

Do I need to go on? (Not to sound mean, just saying that...) Not everyone is you. They may have different means, different needs, and different perspectives than you do, and that might lead them to buy a product other than the one you believe is best.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (May 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


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



Street price for a 5D MkIV is $3,099.99, street price for a 5DSr is $3,199.99, nobody needs $3,500 in their pocket.

Anybody who is in the market for a 5DSr is after the highest IQ available from the 135 format, trouble is anybody that has worked a 5D MkIV file knows it pisses all over the more expensive camera, so where is the best IQ currently? The 5D MkIV...

On chip ADC is the one thing that has made me upgrade. At this point you get the better camera for less money.


----------



## ahsanford (May 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> On chip ADC is the one thing that has made me upgrade. At this point you get the better camera for less money.



Sure. But being a one-issue voter and telling people what they should buy implies _your one issue is *their* one issue_. That's the definition of myopia! PBD, you are long time poster here, and I know you are better than that.

For example...

If I want to shoot a Zeiss 135 prime, I am not buying a 5D4. I am buying a camera that lets me focus with it through the viewfinder. I would buy a 6D or 1DX2 depending on my budget.

If I am shooting landscapes, product, or have a need to crop files in post because I got stuck doing field work with the lens I had on the camera at the time, I want maximum detail. I am not buying a 5D4. I would buy a 5DS R.

If I need a vlogging setup, I wouldn't buy a 5D4. I would buy an 80D or wait for the 6D2 so I could have a tilty-flippy touchscreen.

You get the idea. The 5D4 is a peach, but it's not definitively the best for all needs.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (May 10, 2017)

I'm not being myopic, the question was why would anybody buy a 5DSr over a 5D MkIV, the only thing the 5DSr does 'better' is have more MP. My point was anybody that wants/needs 50MP from a 135 format can't not be interested in IQ, if you are interested in real world IQ then the 5D MkIV is in a different league and the fact that it has more toys is fun but for those interested in ultimate IQ is irrelevant.

Just like when the 6D came out, it has higher IQ than the 5D MkIII and the 1DX. Now can you tell me who would be interested in a 5DSr and not be interested primarily in IQ? Ergo there is no practical reason for anybody interested in a 5DSr buying one instead of a 5D MkIV.

So again, whatever metric you want to use, touch screen, AF, IQ, price etc etc, the 5D MkIV is the better camera.


----------



## ahsanford (May 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> So again, whatever metric you want to use, touch screen, AF, IQ, price etc etc, the 5D MkIV is the better camera.



*...to you.* I'm sure there are folks who saw the 5D4 release and are happily snapping away with the 5DS rigs with zero intention of _downgrading_ to the 5D4.

To some, detail is king, and you are effectively blowing right past that point with "the only thing the 5DSr does 'better' is have more MP". Consider _that might be the principal reason they bought a 5DS R!_

I'm an all-arounder shooter with a 5D3 myself and I believe I'll be a lifelong 5D# shooter. But I'll be the first one to say that I am not every photographer and there is no single best rig for everyone.

With respect, I think we need to agree to disagree at this point.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (May 10, 2017)

Don't be ridiculous, the feature set is the feature set, it isn't different 'for me'.

As I said, I believe most 5DSr owners bought their cameras for, or at the very least because they have a keen interest in, image quality. I'd guess that of the people that own both the 5D MkIV and 5DSr very few use the 5DSr close to as much as the MkIV, the MkIV bests the DSr in every way but pixel numbers but my use over the years has shown many times that better quality pixels punch above their weight with regards numbers.

The 5DSr to 5D MkIV is not "downgrading" in any measure for anybody but possibly half a dozen people who nail exposure every time, don't lift shadows at all, and genuinely output to print at 24"x36" often.


----------



## tron (May 10, 2017)

I hope I did not make a mistake to order a 5DsR. I intend to replace my 7DII with it for bird shooting (mostly to be able to aim the flying birds with my 500mm and for some IQ increase). I have the 5DIV but I use it for low light mostly.


----------



## Act444 (May 10, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder, just out of curiosity, if the 5Ds and the 5DIV were the same price, who'd buy the 5Ds ?



Fortunate enough to be able to have both, and take advantage of each's strengths in the right photographic situation.

The big thing I love about the 5DSR, besides high resolution, is its lack of AA filtering. The difference isn't always significant, but in situations where I crave detail (and they are plentiful), I admit the use of a filtered camera (like the 5D4) can be a minor frustration when a lot of time is needed in PP to sharpen to my liking - and that doing so adds unwanted artifacts and noise. With the R and a good lens, all I need to do is keep the camera still and nail AF and it's all there. 

I just wish the R had better high ISO performance at 6400+, any event where low light is even a possibility means automatic selection of the 5D4, everything else aside.


----------



## Act444 (May 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Don't be ridiculous, the feature set is the feature set, it isn't different 'for me'.
> 
> As I said, I believe most 5DSr owners bought their cameras for, or at the very least because they have a keen interest in, image quality. I'd guess that of the people that own both the 5D MkIV and 5DSr very few use the 5DSr close to as much as the MkIV, the MkIV bests the DSr in every way but pixel numbers but my use over the years has shown many times that better quality pixels punch above their weight with regards numbers.
> 
> The 5DSr to 5D MkIV is not "downgrading" in any measure for anybody but possibly half a dozen people who nail exposure every time, don't lift shadows at all, and genuinely output to print at 24"x36" often.



Just going to address this from my perspective and experience. I don't speak for everyone who has both cameras, just myself. 

Yes, there is disproportionate use in favor of the 5D4 on my part. It comes down to 3 reasons: speed, high ISO performance, and file size/processing ability. Many events I like to shoot are indoors and/or have very low lighting and from experience, the R just does not do well particularly in the latter type of environment. Also, often times action happens quickly and I need a camera that's ready for the shot and that I don't have to wait on. The 5D4 wins here as well. File size - less of an issue now than it used to be (due to lower storage costs), but when hundreds (or sometimes even 1000+!) of shots need to be processed, the time/resource difference can be considerable. 

Where the R shines is when I want to print large and want that detail. While the 5D4 can still help produce a solid 13x19 print, I was blown away when I printed my first 5DSR shot in that size and even under scrutiny, could still see every little detail crystal-clear. Plus, if I want/need to blow it up to 17 or 24 inches, I can do so easily. Also, the lack of AA filter really is nice and the difference is noticeable particularly in the editing process. Often times, little to no sharpening needed. I have to say the moire threat seems to be somewhat overblown in my honest opinion- I've only encountered it once and it was only a tiny amount that I could live with. I feel that if it shows up on the unfiltered camera, it'll show up on the filtered ones too (although it'll be better controlled and less severe).


----------



## AlanF (May 10, 2017)

tron said:


> I hope I did not make a mistake to order a 5DsR. I intend to replace my 7DII with it for bird shooting (mostly to be able to aim the flying birds with my 500mm and for some IQ increase). I have the 5DIV but I use it for low light mostly.



I have both the 5DSR and 5DIV. I absolutely love the 5DSR for bird photography for the extra reach and clarity from absence of AA filter. You have not made a mistake, in terms of IQ and AF, it's a real improvement from the 7DII.


----------



## tr573 (May 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> The 5DSr to 5D MkIV is not "downgrading" in any measure for anybody but possibly half a dozen people who nail exposure every time, don't lift shadows at all, and genuinely output to print at 24"x36" often.



I'm pretty sure there's more than six canon users who do the vast majority of their shooting in a studio setting.


----------



## Jopa (May 10, 2017)

tron said:


> I hope I did not make a mistake to order a 5DsR. I intend to replace my 7DII with it for bird shooting (mostly to be able to aim the flying birds with my 500mm and for some IQ increase). I have the 5DIV but I use it for low light mostly.



Congrats, it's an awesome camera, you will definitely enjoy all details the sensor can capture from your 500/4.


----------



## Sporgon (May 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm not being myopic, the question was why would anybody buy a 5DSr over a 5D MkIV, the only thing the 5DSr does 'better' is have more MP. My point was anybody that wants/needs 50MP from a 135 format can't not be interested in IQ, if you are interested in real world IQ then the 5D MkIV is in a different league and the fact that it has more toys is fun but for those interested in ultimate IQ is irrelevant.
> 
> Just like when the 6D came out, it has higher IQ than the 5D MkIII and the 1DX. Now can you tell me who would be interested in a 5DSr and not be interested primarily in IQ? Ergo there is no practical reason for anybody interested in a 5DSr buying one instead of a 5D MkIV.
> 
> So again, whatever metric you want to use, touch screen, AF, IQ, price etc etc, the 5D MkIV is the better camera.



This would be my take on it. I didn't realise that in the States the 5DIV is cheaper. Here in the UK the 5Ds is about £1000 cheaper than the 5DIV after the cash back offer has been taken into account. I wouldn't be holding my breath for a 5Ds replacement anytime soon.


----------



## tron (May 10, 2017)

AlanF said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I did not make a mistake to order a 5DsR. I intend to replace my 7DII with it for bird shooting (mostly to be able to aim the flying birds with my 500mm and for some IQ increase). I have the 5DIV but I use it for low light mostly.
> ...


Alan it was mainly your sayings about IQ that made me get it - I trust your experience - and the fact that I will be able to target flying birds with my 500mm easier. Now i try to pursuade the seller to send it faster than usual for the camera to arrive before my vacation starts...


----------



## AlanF (May 10, 2017)

Whenever I use my 5DSR for BIF the verses from Railroad Bill go through my head:

I've got a thirty-eight special on a forty-five frame,
How in the world can I miss him when I got dead aim,
I'm going to ride old Railroad Bill.

Buy me a pistol just as long as my arm,
Kill everybody ever done me harm,
I'm going to ride old Railroad Bill.

Except it goes:

I've got a 7D reach on a full frame,
How in the world can I miss that bird when I got dead aim,
I'm going to ride old Kestrel Bill.

Buy me a lens just as long as my arm,
Shoot every bird on the local farm,
I'm going to ride old Kestrel Bill.


----------



## Act444 (May 11, 2017)

AlanF said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I did not make a mistake to order a 5DsR. I intend to replace my 7DII with it for bird shooting (mostly to be able to aim the flying birds with my 500mm and for some IQ increase). I have the 5DIV but I use it for low light mostly.
> ...



Question for you, not sure if you know or not, but - which is sharper, 5D4 + 1.4x extender or 5DSR w/bare lens? Or, even 5D4 + 2x vs 5DSR w/1.4x?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 11, 2017)

tr573 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The 5DSr to 5D MkIV is not "downgrading" in any measure for anybody but possibly half a dozen people who nail exposure every time, don't lift shadows at all, and genuinely output to print at 24"x36" often.
> ...



Yes there are, and how many of them never lift the shadows slider one notch AND print over 24" x 36" regularly? 

I know of two, they both own and use 5DSr's and have since they came out, one now uses a 5D MkIV and the other uses pretty much everything but mostly medium format digital.


----------



## AlanF (May 11, 2017)

Act444 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



It's something I know well from 100s of comparisons - the 5DSR is sharper with a bare lens vs 1.4xTC on 5DIV and with a 1.4xTC vs 2x on 5DIV. 

There are good reasons for this. The advantages of the 5DSR are smaller pixels and absence of AA filter for resolution. The disadvantages are that the smaller pixels are more susceptible to shake and are noisier. But, if you put a 1.4xTC on a lens, the 40% increase in length increases the shake and the loss of a stop increases the noise, cancelling out the advantage of the larger pixels. The 1.4xTC does give some degradation of image and the 2xTC even more so.


----------



## Act444 (May 12, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Wow, that's interesting. 

I'd figure the greater demands of the 50 MP sensor on the lens would also cause some degradation of IQ (viewed at 100%, that is, which is an important point given extensive cropping) but interesting note that the TC has a greater effect.


----------



## tron (May 19, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


OK Alan my 5DsR arrived just in time for my vacation. I did not have time to do AFMA (apart from some rough - non-scientific one). Now where are the birds that do modeling? ;D ;D ;D


----------

