# Review - Do You Need or Want 50mp? Canon EOS 5DS R



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 27, 2016)

```
Dustin has completed the Canon Rumors review of the Canon EOS 5DS R, a camera that a lot of Canon photographers asked for and is probably the most polarizing DSLR in terms of need that I’ve ever come across.</p>
<p><strong>Do you need 50mp?</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>…. that is the conundrum of the 5DsR. It is a great camera, but it is also a niche one. If you need 50MP, it’s not only the best 35mm option; it’s currently the only one. But if you don’t really need 50MP, look elsewhere, as that amount of resolution comes with a cost. I suspect the biggest market for the Canon EOS 5Ds/5DsR twins will be in the bags of photographers who don’t use them as their sole cameras and are able to use them in the way they intended: special tools for specific jobs. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-eos-5ds-r/">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>I do want a high megapixel body and I like the 5DS and 5DS R, but I’m more interested in a camera with a larger than 35mm sensor. Hey Leica, howabout a 50-80mp S?</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Click (Jul 27, 2016)

Interesting read.

Great job on the article, Dustin.


----------



## George D. (Jul 27, 2016)

5DSR offers the following resolution choices: 
RAW: 50Mp (60.5MB), 28Mp (44MB), 12Mp (29.8MB)
JPEG: 50Mp (14.1/7.0MB), 39Mp (10.9/5.5MB), 22Mp (7.1/3.5MB), 12Mp (4.5/2.3MB), 2.5Mp (1.2MB), 0.3Mp (0.3MB)
Source: User's Manual pg.151.

One can mostly be shooting 28Mp and 50Mp on special occasion or mostly 50Mp depending assignment. The notion of a 5D Mk. IV at max. 28Mp RAW shall offer another alternative.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 27, 2016)

My first Canon camera (after having a bunch of Sonys, including the most recent A7r2) and I'm really impressed by it. Paired with a big white it's capable of producing incredible images. The AF is amazing and works very well in pretty much all conditions. The "processing power requirement" downside is questionable - I mostly use a 13" MPB (dual core) with 16GB of RAM and it works quite well, in spite of LR6 being a slow piece of garbage, I don't see much difference versus 36Mpx A7r or 42Mpx A7r2 files. Looking forward to see a 120Mpx camera from Canon


----------



## George D. (Jul 27, 2016)

From PC World (Sept.8, 2015):
"Canon's DSLR camera boasts an insane 120-megapixels
The camera has an EOS body and EF lens compatibility -- but Canon has no plans to sell it

Canon is developing a digital SLR camera with a sensor that boasts a resolution of about 120 megapixels. 
That's more than double the resolution of Canon's 50.6-megapixel EOS 5DS and 5DS R models, which were announced in February as having world’s highest resolution for digital SLR 35mm full-frame sensors.

The super-dense CMOS sensor in the new prototype shooter is in the APS-H format and the camera would work with 60 of the 96 lenses in Canon's EF lineup. The sensor produces eye-popping images that can be printed as full-size posters, said Canon, which announced Monday that it has developed a 250-megapixel prototype sensor for extreme-resolution imaging. 

The 120-megapixel camera outputs RAW image files with a data size of 232MB, nearly four times as big as the 60.5MB RAW files shot by the 5DS.

In 2010, Canon produced a 120-megapixel CMOS sensor as a technical challenge and it was never commercialized. Though it released a generic image of an EOS DSLR for the latest prototype camera, there are no immediate plans to commercialize it either.

"This camera was produced as an example of Canon's high-definition imaging capabilities," spokesman Richard Berger said via email. The new sensor can be considered an evolution of the 2010 one but it uses the latest fabrication technologies, he added". 


BTW, 120Mp RAW, 232MB file?!
...do you (still) need or want 120Mp?


----------



## Larsskv (Jul 27, 2016)

I've had the 5Ds since last September. For most of my shots, I guess 12 megapixels would be more than enough. However, I've taken a couple of pictures with the 5Ds that I've printed in 120x80 cm, that look awesome. They wouldn't be that good with a 20 megapixel camera. 

I'm an amateur taking pictures for personal use, mainly when hiking. In my situation, you never know when the next great motive+light appears, but when it does, those 50 megapixels are going to make you very happy. 

Further, I view my pictures on a ~13 inch iPad Pro. It's incredible to have the opportunity to zoom in the way you can with pictures from the 5Ds. I understand most people may not view pictures like that, but I believe many will in the future. Having 50 megapixels feels a bit like future proofing. 

With regards to file sizes, my everyday average shots are converted to lossy DNG, and most files are at 20 megabytes. Only the best or most unique pictures are kept as cr2 files. 

Lightroom runs slower with 5Ds files, than smaller files, but I think the performance improved significantly with a recent Lightroom CC update. 

I'm really happy for my 5Ds and it's large files.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 27, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> ...Having 50 megapixels feels a bit like future proofing.



Some day 8K monitors and televisions will be a regular thing, that's 32MP total but you need at least 40MP in a 3:2 aspect ratio to fill the 7,680 (minimum) pixel width.
Something like wedding photos, I might actually specify getting at 40MP, with 50MP you just have a tiny bit of cropping room for 8K display.

High end photographs will be one of the first types of content to really demonstrate how good those future displays can be, and as someone who specifically gets excited about that sort of idea I do want as many pixels as possible for "some" applications. Oppositely, 12MP is still an order of magnitude more than I need for anything posted on the Internet.
At least 50 years from now someone might be able to look at a high resolution picture and say "that looks like it was taken yesterday" (as long as the industry doesn't transition entirely to video bites).

I really really wish Canon would make a 50MP APS-C body. It would be the Ultimate Macro Machine, take great BIF shots, and have reasonably futureproof portrait and landscape capabilities (and not cost over $4,000CAD like the 5Ds).


----------



## Chris_BC (Jul 28, 2016)

Having owned and used the 5DS R for over 10 months now, I can tell you that the 50+ MPs are glorious! I also think the negatives have been overstated. I will agree that this is not the ideal low light camera or a big step forward in video recording. Beyond that, the picture quality on a large monitor can be amazing.

I'm a serious amateur that started out with a first gen Rebel in early 2005. I went though upgrades to 20D, 40D, 7D, and 5D MKIII, leading up to the 5DSR. I was always looking for razor sharpness, but never really came close until the 5D MKIII. The 5DS R takes things a big step further. 

I only shoot raw now, mostly landscape stuff. (The picture quality jump processing raw over in camera JPEGs is huge!) Noise is not an issue even in shadows with the noise reduction in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop itself. I use low NR settings and that is plenty, even when boosting the shadows. My previous monitor was a 30 inch Dell U3011 at 2560 x 1600. I just upgraded to the new 43 inch Philips BDM4350 4K 10 bit. Using this monitor a lot of pictures look pretty much like you're staring out the window. At $800 it was a steal. It measures about 20 inches by 36 inches, so it's like looking at everything poster size.

Someone mentioned using a 13 inch iPad. Really? I don't see the point. If you really want to see the quality of your pictures get one of the 40 inch or larger 4K monitors out there. I'm going to say you don't know what you're missing with 50 MP until you do.

My last point would be that the continued claims that you cannot hand hold the 5DS R and get sharp pictures is false. Is it more demanding than a 5D MKIII? Maybe in low light, but I've gotten plenty of razor sharp pictures hand held. I can't wait to see how much Canon improves the 16-35L 2.8 and the 24-105L 4. While the resolution makes lesser lenses better it will also reveal lens weaknesses clearly.


----------



## bertzie (Jul 28, 2016)

Do I "need" 50mp? No. Do I "want" 50mp? Yes. It would be cool, I just can't justify it.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 28, 2016)

I read articles like this that say you have to have special technique or the motion blur becomes more apparent.
That it is a niche body best used on a tripod.

Over a year of using it and I am still waiting on these things to manifest itself in my work.
Maybe it is my superior technique and steady hands. NAH, my technique is good but my youthful days of a steady hand have passed. Yet I continue to take pics with far more detail than with other bodies. 

I will buy in to the negatives of huge files, storage space, slow transfer speeds and ISO limitations.


----------



## Larsskv (Jul 28, 2016)

Chris_BC said:


> Someone mentioned using a 13 inch iPad. Really? I don't see the point. If you really want to see the quality of your pictures get one of the 40 inch or larger 4K monitors out there. I'm going to say you don't know what you're missing with 50 MP until you do.



I tried having my 27 iMac on my lap, but didn't really care for it. 

Seriously though, having 50 megapixels is very nice on the iPad Pro.


----------



## Haawks (Jul 28, 2016)

Buying the 5DsR was the best thing i ever done.
I did have my thought about why i would need the 50mp and i could only justify it with "Well, i have a lot of primes and i quess its good when cropping". 
Now, i would never go back, only up. 
The large file-size could be bad if you dont have a external NAS to save all the RAW-files on. But that is the only downside i can think of. The latest update in Lightroom and photoshop speeded up the applications so i cant say the raw-files are slow to process due to there size.

About the "cant get sharp images-talk"; sure, there is a point in what they are saying. i usually aim for ´focal length * 2´ to get sharp images (when not having a tripod or image stabilization). 
If i did go slower and did get unsharp images, the images is only unsharp at 100%. Scaled down to the size of a mk3 or 6d they are just as sharp. 

I understand why many don't want or need this camera, but for me its awesome. Try it out, you might like it.. The images are fantastic. The built in USB3, intervalometer, antiflicker and some other stuff are also a joy 

So.. there goes my first post after following this website as a guest for a long time.. 

Take care friends!


----------



## TheJock (Jul 28, 2016)

Well Dustin's signing off comments really hit the nail on the head for me!!!
Even though that landscape view cropped image of the barn in comparison to the actual portrait full size image really is a massive WOW, the ultimate answer I took away was “do you want to spend more time in post” and for me the answer is no! 
I barley have the time to use the Elements 12 programme I own as it is, so I’m not looking forward to buying LR and I’m certainly not looking forward to spending days in from of a computer post processing my images, but of course, I’m not a pro and I don’t make money from photography, so these factors are the ones that separate people’s opinions. I would love to be able to crop my Bird photos down from 50.6mp to obtain a close crop sharp image, but I just don’t have the time, so my 5DIII and 70D will be more than sufficient for the foreseeable for me! No 5DSr for me then :'(


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 28, 2016)

One of my friends who is very good at airshows recently got the SR. He is very happy with the new Canon. Happier than he originally thought he would be. A little bigger buffer would help him out.

The higher resolution and the slower frame rate, from his 1D, makes him work harder but the results have been most impressive. It seems the SR, like the other high resolution cameras on the market can be unforgiving of technique, but if one puts in the effort to learn the system, the results are amazing.


----------



## Sator (Jul 28, 2016)

Thank you Dustin for the thoughtful and well written review.

Oddly enough I just sold my 6D after owning the 5DsR since release. This is a reflection of what other photography gear I own, rather than a negative assessment of the 6D. 

I have personally found that the 6D produced images that are a bit too soft, and I find the white balance a touch too warm. The 5DsR produces crisper, cleaner, and more contrasty images—as long as you are shooting in near ideal light. It's a studio camera after all...the "s" in 5Ds stands for studio! That is how I use mine, although as long as you don't push the ISO, it can be used out in the field too.

The reason I sold my 6D was that the latest Fuji X-Pro2, and even more so the X-T2, is starting to be able to replace it as a field camera (dual card slots, faster frame rates, increasingly better able to shoot action and in lowish light). The Fuji X-Pro2 has a white balance similar to the 5DsR. I could imagine that if you were used to the 6D that you might think these newer models from Canon and Fuji have a cooler white balance, but I suspect that these newer models have more accurate white balance compared to the 6D, which is a touch too warm. I notice this with skin tone, where both Canon and Fuji together arguably represent the industry standards when it comes to getting good skin tone, with their newer models being even better than the older ones. 

The next issue is that of the advantage of high resolution sensors. It is not limited to just oversized printing at all. I tend to agree with Tony Northrup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyOmgArU0MA&feature=youtu.be

The last issue is that of the oft mentioned issue of diffraction. I wonder if you have access to the mathematical calculations that determine the relationship between _visible_ diffraction and sensor resolution. I have never seen this, and suspect that nobody can produce it simply because much of this is based on an urban myth:

https://jonrista.com/2013/03/24/the-diffraction-myth/

http://community.the-digital-picture.com/showthread.php?t=809

Diffraction in physics is caused by light passing through a slit or hole. This comes from Canon:





Light comes from the left, passes through the slit (indicated by the blue line), causing light to be diffracted (on the right). 

The amount of diffraction cannot be altered by changing the size of the pixels on the sensor side. The width of the slit the light passes through is the only parameter which can influence the degree of diffraction. Reducing the pixel size on the sensor therefore cannot alter the amount of diffraction that occurs. For a slit of a given size, irrespective of the sensor resolution, the amount of diffraction as it passes through the slit is always the same. Higher resolutions/smaller pixel size may make the diffraction more visible, but it cannot alter the amount of light diffraction. So the idea that higher sensor resolution makes diffraction set in at ever wider apertures makes little sense. 

Thus the idea that a future 120MP Canon full frame sensor on the FE mount might cause diffraction to become a limiting factor hardly makes good optical sense. That is why I think we need to see the actual mathematical demonstration that underpins these claims about the relationship between _visible_ diffraction (sufficient to cause IQ degradation) and pixel size. Until I actually see this, I am going to call the commonly repeated stuff about diffraction limiting the usefulness of high resolution sensors an urban myth until proven otherwise. I would be happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2016)

Sator
I was going to mention the point about diffraction. Put simply, the size of the ring of blurring caused by diffraction (the size of the Airy disk, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk) is absolutely identical for the 5Ds, 5DIII, 6D etc for when the same lens is attached at the same f-number. Diffraction is never any worse on a 5Ds than on a FF with less pixels but the 5Ds starts to lose the advantage of having more pixels as the f-number increases.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jul 28, 2016)

I have the use for 50MP. Heck I have the use for 100MP med format. But the problem with 5DS series and 50MP is that very few full frame lenses can resolve that much detail. So at about 36MP most FF lenses just do not hold up and you basically get diminishing returns on clarity & sharpness. So between 36 and 50MP you maybe get 2 more MP of sharpness. So you really do not get a sharper image, you just get a larger file. However if sigma was to make a 50-100mm Art for the full frame that would resolve at least 40MP of the 50.. Then heck yea that would be awesome.. Before Canon turns out any more 50MP cameras, they need to pick up the pace and focus on higher resolution FF lenses..


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jul 28, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Sator
> I was going to mention the point about diffraction. Put simply, the size of the ring of blurring caused by diffraction (the size of the Airy disk, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk) is absolutely identical for the 5Ds, 5DIII, 6D etc for when the same lens is attached at the same f-number. Diffraction is never any worse on a 5Ds than on a FF with less pixels but the 5Ds starts to lose the advantage of having more pixels as the f-number increases.



Its all about the pixel pitch..


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2016)

ExodistPhotography said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Sator
> ...



No, it is only about the aperture size and reproduction ratio.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 29, 2016)

The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jul 29, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.



Having read your review and others' reviews, along with users posting here, I would say that this Canon model is an awesome camera and for those with experience (i.e. good technique, or willing to learn/practice it) and the need/money, it would be a good-to-great investment. I take your advice, as seriously good advice, that this model would be a great-to-outstanding addition to any photographer's kit for those times and situations where you could make use of it - landscapes, far-distant wildlife, portraiture, studio work, and serious macro, etc.

I find all of these comments to be helpful/beneficial, as well as interesting. For those using this model and sharing/posting your experience here...THANK YOU!!! And to Dustin...keep up the excellent, real-world experience reviews. They are much appreciated.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.



You can say that about any good camera - just not for everyone.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 29, 2016)

AlanF said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.
> ...



Perhaps, but the extreme nature of this particular camera makes that more true than, say, the 5D3.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



More true than the 1DX II or 7D II?


----------



## bholliman (Jul 30, 2016)

First off, thanks Dustin for another excellent review. I read and watch all your reviews and enjoy your real world perspective on gear.

I've owned a 5DsR for 9-months and absolutely love it. I ended up selling my 5D Mk3 after owning the 5DsR for a few months since I found the SR did everything the Mk 3 could do, only better. I still have a 6D that I use as a back-up body and for low light situations, but I find I use the 5DsR 90% of the time now. I don't consider it a niche camera at all. For me its my every day camera that I use for almost everything. 

The only minor negative from my perspective is the large file size and somewhat slower processing time, but that is a trade off I can easily live with. Storage and memory is cheap these days. Personally, I'm glad it doesn't have WiFi, NFC, GPS, etc. those are features I would never use and would just un-necessarily bump up the price. I also don't find the noise on higher ISO pictures to be much of a problem. Yes, the images are noisier than my 6D or 5D3 images at similar ISO settings, but I find it cleans up easily in PP and when the images are downsized, I don't see much difference in my downsized 5DsR images when compared to my initially cleaner 6D files up to ISO3200. 



Haawks said:


> About the "cant get sharp images-talk"; sure, there is a point in what they are saying. i usually aim for ´focal length * 2´ to get sharp images (when not having a tripod or image stabilization).
> If i did go slower and did get unsharp images, the images is only unsharp at 100%. Scaled down to the size of a mk3 or 6d they are just as sharp.



+1 I think the arguments about difficulty of getting sharp images due to the smaller pixels is over-emphasized. Yes, you do need better technique and faster shutter speeds to get razor sharp images, but modern image stabilization mitigates much of that. With my 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS lenses, I'm able to get pixel sharp images hand held at as low as 1/15 second fairly consistently. 



AlanF said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



The 5Ds(R) isn't for everybody, but no camera body is. It offers strengths and weaknesses, its nice to have options to choose from. I'm sure Canon will sell many more 5D3's and 5D4's, but I don't think that necessarily makes the 5Ds(R) a niche camera any more than any other body Canon offers.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 30, 2016)

AlanF said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



The price of the 1Dx II makes it out of the conversation for most users, so I'll cede that one to you. I would say yes to the 7DII, though. I don't see anything particularly extreme about it, and a lot of people will choose to own it because it is the most robust APS-C camera and isn't overly expensive.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 30, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



The price of the 7DII is out of the conversation for most users - most buy a Rebel or less. The fact is that CR followers are mainly niche Canonistas, many of whom have 1DXs and 5DSs. You might have missed the post of the cameras amassed by Getty for the Olympics, they were all 1DX IIs and 5DS Rs, which is what excites us on CR.


----------



## TheJock (Jul 31, 2016)

AlanF said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.
> ...


I completely forgot to say a thank you to Dustin for his excellent article, they're always so informative so thanks Dustin.

Alan F, you have a spectacular line up of lenses in your Sig, and as I've seen many of your excellent images on birds, how does the 5DSr compare to the 7DII with that mighty Sigma 150-600??
Is Moire more noticeable within birds plumage when you heavily crop a 5DSr image? I'm very interested in your opinion on that.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 31, 2016)

I don't consider it a niche camera. I upgraded from the 5D3 - very quickly I've started using the 5Ds all the time, with my older body as an emergency backup.

The larger file sizes are the only major drawback. You can work around it - get the best memory card, maybe upgrade your computer - although that adds a fair bit of cost. Other than that, the upper ISO limit is a little low, although you can shoot at 12800 and boost the exposure in post, and the files can take a bit more pushing than the 5D3's could. If you're after ISO 50k+ neither of these bodies is really ideal. Finally, the 5Ds has a slightly slower maximum fps, but I found upgrading my memory card from a mediocre SD to a good quality CF the newer camera was actually snappier - of course that's not gonna be most people's experience. However, few will notice the difference of ~1fps between the two. Again, if you need a much higher speed, the 5D series isn't ideal.

My conclusion is, if the 5D3 suits your needs, the 5Ds/r will too, and they function almost identically, so long as you can deal with much higher file sizes. Added features - especially the time lapse function - make this a worthy replacement for what I do.


----------



## Refurb7 (Jul 31, 2016)

I'm in the category of "Don't need 50mp". The 5D3 provides all of the resolution I want. I honestly don't want to upgrade anything. Maybe someday if the price of the 5Ds/r really comes down.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 1, 2016)

Thanks Dustin for a very fair and balanced review.
I think it will be helpful for people thinking of buying it.
I have one for about 10 months and I many similar thoughts on it as a camera.

I'd agree if you are not wanting 50MP the 5D III (or 6D) are all you would need.
The File size does have a big impact.
I changed all my computer gear to cope with them. 
My old PC's / Laptop were just too slow to cope.
Storage (at the rate I shoot pictures) is a real issue too.
A heavy days shooting results in a 100GB of data. You need a big hard drive and big back up hard drives.
It all costs, a 5DSR increases your costs.

The ISO performance I have found frustrating. I don't like the noise it produces. The 5DIII noise is easier to deal with.

For a good while I was quite disappointed with the 5DSR but the more I used it the more I played to its strength. 
I used it heavily for 10 days in Iceland and it performed excellently.
Its great for Landscape, its worth using it on a tripod.
Shadow recovery is very good.
It's an excellent studio camera.

So my final conclusion is that it is a very good camera, the big files leave alot of leeway for cropping. The High MP can be very handy at times. It's a great camera to have in my arsenal .
It will be interesting if the 5D IV is 30mp will it kill off interest in the 5DSR.


----------



## hajiaru (Aug 2, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> I've had the 5Ds since last September. For most of my shots, I guess 12 megapixels would be more than enough. However, I've taken a couple of pictures with the 5Ds that I've printed in 120x80 cm, that look awesome. They wouldn't be that good with a 20 megapixel camera.



you need special expensive lenses to get 50 megapixel. what lense did you use ?


----------



## Jopa (Aug 2, 2016)

hajiaru said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I've had the 5Ds since last September. For most of my shots, I guess 12 megapixels would be more than enough. However, I've taken a couple of pictures with the 5Ds that I've printed in 120x80 cm, that look awesome. They wouldn't be that good with a 20 megapixel camera.
> ...



Pretty much any lens benefits from the 50mpx sensor, some quite significantly, some not much, but still...
Check this out: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/

With the big whites results are mind blowing IMO. I tried it also with the Otus 85, that one is pain in the [email protected], you need a LV magnifier for precise focusing.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/omproject
https://www.flickr.com/photos/maximenco
(some pics are occasionally taken with my old a7r2)


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 2, 2016)

hajiaru said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I've had the 5Ds since last September. For most of my shots, I guess 12 megapixels would be more than enough. However, I've taken a couple of pictures with the 5Ds that I've printed in 120x80 cm, that look awesome. They wouldn't be that good with a 20 megapixel camera.
> ...



I have mainly L lenses, but also the Sigma 20 ART, Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS and 35mm f/2 IS. I really like that 28mm!

The large prints I have made were all taken with the 16-35 f4 L IS, which is the lens I use the most when hiking.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 2, 2016)

Chris_BC said:


> My last point would be that the continued claims that you cannot hand hold the 5DS R and get sharp pictures is false. Is it more demanding than a 5D MKIII?



The claim is complete BS and you have to wonder why Dustin does not make it clear: sharpness is 100% the same handheld as with a 5DIII - 100%. However, if you use a stable setup such as a good tripod it can produce far sharper pictures than you can ever make with a 5DIII. So much for that downside.

Worse is that Dustin is plain and simply wrong on the noise of the 5DS/R and it does him very little credit to write that the 5DS/R has a disadvantage here compared to the 5DIII. 

Noise is better on the 5DS/R than the 5DIII. And you do not have to do anything - zero - to getter better results. All this nonsense about "downsampling" has completely confused people.

Fact is this: if you are looking at the same picture from a 5DIII and a 5DS/R on a screen or in print the 5DS/R will always have at least as good - and very often - better noise than the picture taken with a 5DIII. And you do not have to do anything at all with the 5DS/R picture to achieve this. Its only if you view a larger 5DS/R picture than the 5DIII picture you notice anything. But hey! - that's of course a totally unfair way of comparing the noise in two pictures of the same subject.

When it comes to the iso-settings of the 5DS/R I'd expect someone who claims to be a reviewer to get it right: you can shoot the 5DS/R @ iso 12.800 and adjust in post to iso 100.000+ or 350.000+ or 1.000.000+ iso with the same results as you get with a 5DIII. Actually better, because even if noise will be very much the same banding is better (less) on the 5DS/R at these extremes.

Fact is, that for a photographer (not video) the one and only downside of shooting with a 5DS/R against a 5DII is 5 vs 6 fps - in my view a non-essential difference: they are both too slow if speed is your thing.

Everything else is better on the image side, were it really counts, color, DR, noise, WB, anti-flicker etc. And of course the 50MB that allows you to do so much more with your pictures. 

On the non-image side seems odd to me that Dustin does not mention that the 5DS/R has much better AF than the 5DIII - including being able to autofocus down to ev-3.

5DS/R is not a perfect camera. No camera is or will ever be. But in the very direct comparision Dustin chooses with the 5DIII I cannot imagine even one single situation were the 5DS/R would not be the better choice than a 5DIII. But if anyone can imagine such a situation it would be interesting.

Building his premise on this assumption I can only conclude that the reviewer went into the testing and review with a firm pre-determined conclusion in his mind.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 2, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Chris_BC said:
> 
> 
> > My last point would be that the continued claims that you cannot hand hold the 5DS R and get sharp pictures is false. Is it more demanding than a 5D MKIII?
> ...



That is all well and good, but presupposes you are going to use the 5DS/R output exactly the same as the 5D MkIII output, which is kinda pointless to my mind.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 2, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Chris_BC said:
> 
> 
> > My last point would be that the continued claims that you cannot hand hold the 5DS R and get sharp pictures is false. Is it more demanding than a 5D MKIII?
> ...



+1
As pointed out here and in earlier posts, the higher pixel sensor generally outperforms the lower pixel one under good conditions and is generally not worse under sub-optimal conditions. DxO has compared the two in:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___1009_795

If you don't like dxo, go to Bill Claff who shows the 5DS R has better dynamic range than the 5DIII etc
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

The AF on the 5DS R is even better than that on the 5DIII, being next generation, and I find it better.

The only real downsides of the 5DS R are large file sizes and price.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 5, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> 5DS/R is not a perfect camera. No camera is or will ever be. But in the very direct comparision Dustin chooses with the 5DIII I cannot imagine even one single situation were the 5DS/R would not be the better choice than a 5DIII. But if anyone can imagine such a situation it would be interesting.





AlanF said:


> The only real downsides of the 5DS R are large file sizes and price.



I agree with these comments. I owned a 5D3 and 6D last fall when I purchased a 5DsR. I did lots of side-by-side shooting with all three cameras and decided to sell the 5D3 and keep the 6D as a back-up/2nd body since I felt it was a better compliment to the 5DsR. The 5DsR is a significant overall improvement over the 5D3 in several areas that are important to me: 
resolution/sharpness
autofocus
files that are easy to work with in post (noise that cleans up easily, incredible ability to crop)
exposure compensation in manual mode
The only, minor, downside is the large file size that slows down PP a little. But with a fast computer, plenty of memory and cheap storage, that issue is minimized.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 5, 2016)

bholliman said:


> I agree with these comments. I owned a 5D3 and 6D last fall when I purchased a 5DsR. I did lots of side-by-side shooting with all three cameras and decided to sell the 5D3 and keep the 6D as a back-up/2nd body since I felt it was a better compliment to the 5DsR.



Indeed, exactly my own situation.


----------



## Perio (Aug 6, 2016)

I would love to get 5dsr mark ii to complement my Leica S. But I guess it'll take another 1-2 years for Canon to release it.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 6, 2016)

Perio said:


> I guess it'll take another 1-2 years for Canon to release it.



Given Canon previous record I'd say at least 4 years. Any new tech will sit with the 5DIV for another 4-5 years from now. There'll be no presure to update the 5DS/R.

BTW why was the review of a camera posted under "lenses"?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 10, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with these comments. I owned a 5D3 and 6D last fall when I purchased a 5DsR. I did lots of side-by-side shooting with all three cameras and decided to sell the 5D3 and keep the 6D as a back-up/2nd body since I felt it was a better compliment to the 5DsR.
> ...


I sold my 5D-III in June and kept my 6D. Waiting to see what 5D-IV brings to the table before pulling the trigger on a 5D-IV or 5Ds.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 11, 2016)

AlanF said:


> If you don't like dxo, go to Bill Claff who shows the 5DS R has better dynamic range than the 5DIII etc
> http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm



Wow - I'm not into DR myself (of course always nice to have more - doing well with my style of shooting already) but I'm impressed how good the 5DS/R looks compared to other Canon cameras.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 12, 2016)

My own experience with a 5DSR and a 5DIII is that the ISO performance of the 5D III is better.
The noise in the 5DIII is easier to clean up.
I don't like the noise in my 5DSR at all. It's similar to the noise in the 7DII. 
It seems to me to be more blotchy. 
Canon themselves by default restrict the ISO on the 5DSR as they must think beyond the default point the noise is not something they want to show off.

I've grown to like the 5DSR but its best under ideal conditions.
Low ISO and on a stable platform is where it works best.
It has great image detail under those conditions
I find the 5D III more flexible, more of an all rounder.
I'll be interested in the reviews of the 5D IV.
The upgrades are incremental and not exciting on paper.
It will be a better camera than the 5D III and I'll be interested in reading in what way.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 12, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> My own experience with a 5DSR and a 5DIII is that the ISO performance of the 5D III is better.
> The noise in the 5DIII is easier to clean up.
> I don't like the noise in my 5DSR at all. It's similar to the noise in the 7DII.
> It seems to me to be more blotchy.
> Canon themselves by default restrict the ISO on the 5DSR as they must think beyond the default point the noise is not something they want to show off.


I disagree. I find the noise of the 5DSR a lot easier to work with and I am still surprised Canon limited the ISO range to 12800 (extended).
This is an ISO6400 shot from the 5DSR, with a 30 second automatic HQ(Fast) noise reduction in DxO OpticsPro 11, no manual extras.

Besides being a beautiful dry-fly caught Icelandic trout, I´d be interested in hearing how a 5DIII image would look better or in what sense noise would be easier to work with.

PS! I have just cropped it to 1:1 and done nothing to light, colour, contrast or anything else.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 12, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> My own experience with a 5DSR and a 5DIII is that the ISO performance of the 5D III is better.
> The noise in the 5DIII is easier to clean up.
> I don't like the noise in my 5DSR at all. It's similar to the noise in the 7DII.
> It seems to me to be more blotchy.
> Canon themselves by default restrict the ISO on the 5DSR as they must think beyond the default point the noise is not something they want to show off.


If you are shooting RAW there's a solution to your challenges so you can get more out of your 5DS/R pictures.

What program are you using and how do you deal with noise? And if you use LightRoom are you using Adobe's standard color profile?


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 12, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > My own experience with a 5DSR and a 5DIII is that the ISO performance of the 5D III is better.
> ...



I can never remember what color space I'm using but I'd assume it is Adobe's Standard Color profile. Yes I'd be interested in any tips.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 12, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



OK. This is likely your problem. And its easily fixed. 

Sadly, Adobe default color space for the 5DS/R is broken. It will crunch your blacks and overblow your whites. I promise you that just changing this in LR will improve your pictures a lot.

I have posted some samples here that show how big a difference changing the color profile makes: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57099728

I'm not quite sure why Adobe did not change it altogether. They did make a fix however. I have my own color profile and you can find several out there for free if you google them. 

But to keep things easy I suggest you either use Adobe's own "Neutral" color profile (free download) or check out Horshack's customs profile's (freebee also) which many consider better because Adobe's are slightly flat in the colors - and I agree with this. There's also Huelight's profiles (15$) taking a small fee for a vast improvement:

Horshack: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56156685

Huelight: http://www.colorfidelity.com/canon.htm

Adobe's atempt is here with steps for installation (beware there is a difference between profiles for the 5DS and 5DS/R): https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1872272

Try it out with a few of your pictures at first - it should at least take away the "blotchiness" - and do come back here if noise is still not as good as you would like it to be.


----------

