# Is the Canon EOS 5DS series to be replaced by a mirrorless camera? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 10, 2018)

> We’ve been told a couple of times in very vague terms that Canon may be looking to replace the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R with a higher megapixel EOS R series camera.
> The high megapixel 5DS series from Canon is a niche product in the lineup and it would make some sense to move this series over to the EOS R side of things. I don’t believe the average 5DS user would be all that bothered by adapting EF lenses, especially with the adapter options available to EOS R shooters. Landscape shooters will likely love the circular polarizer and ND filter adapters available from Canon.
> We believe that a native wide angle zoom will be coming sometime in 2019, and that would help with the transition to the EOS R system for shooters that don’t want to go the adapter router.
> Take this with a grain of salt, as I’m not sure Canon will be ready to kill off a DSLR line this soon in favour of an infant full frame mirrorless system. That said, I have no information about how well the EOS 5DS series of cameras...



Continue reading...


----------



## ecpu (Oct 10, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Makes sense to me. My guess for the 2nd FF mirrorless has been basically this the entire time. Canon likes to use old tech over developing new stuff, so I predict the sensor from the 5DSR series but "updated/redesigned" in the same way the 5DIV sensor was "newly developed" for the EOS R. The camera may or may not have better controls such as a joystick for focus points and it's unlikely to have full frame 4K (no crop) or 120P at 1080 due to sensor tech and readout speeds, high 50MP resolution and same Digic 8 processor used in EOS R. I also wouldn't expect to see any IBIS implementation.

But, I'm certain that it will take incredibly sharp and detailed photos especially with the new RF lenses.

I'm personally more interested in what Canon might be able to do with a lower resolution sensor like 20-26 MP. Maybe we could get better DR, higher fps and full frame 4K.


----------



## VORON (Oct 10, 2018)

Sounds very reasonable. Canon still must release the high-MP EOS R body to complement new L-class RF lenses. And present 5DS cameras are outdated, waiting for replacement for too long. There's no sense in releasing both MILC and DSLR of same class with little delay, making them fight each other.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 10, 2018)

Makes sense. Even if it only has 1080p and no 4K at all it'd still be a worthwhile camera if they could get a 50-60mpx sensor in an EOS R body. 

Now, hopefully this time they can do it right and have NO anti alias filter at all instead of the double filter mess they have on the 5DSR.


----------



## ecpu (Oct 10, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Makes sense. Even if it only has 1080p and no 4K at all it'd still be a worthwhile camera if they could get a 50-60mpx sensor in an EOS R body.
> 
> Now, hopefully this time they can do it right and have NO anti alias filter at all instead of the double filter mess they have on the 5DSR.


I tend to agree that the video specs are less important on a camera focused on high resolution, but they still need to consider it due to the competition. Well, in my opinion anyway. But Canon tends to not look at the competitions offerings.

I do agree that they need to avoid the AA filter though.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 10, 2018)

If a new high resolution camera with a more advanced sensor (more dynamic resolution and no pattern noise) became available for EF mount, I would buy it.


----------



## RobbieHat (Oct 10, 2018)

I not only wouldn't be surprised by this development, but would be quite happy as well. I am hoping for the 5DSR replacement to include no AA filter (per comments above), a small bump in MP, a big improvement in DR and high ISO performance a much better focusing system and a small bump in FPS. I don't particularly care about video as I believe this camera is primarily a studio/landscape model. 

Combine this with a more compact/lighter body and some killer R series lenses and I am all in. I will sell my 5D Mark III, 5DSR and any lenses that match the focal lengths of my existing L set up. 

This would also be a great wildlife setup as I use the 5DSR today for wildlife and it is pretty decent. If they improve the FPS and focusing system it will be the best wildlife setup out there. Pixel cropping when you need it and amazing resolution when you can get close. Feathers and fur will be popping! 

Come on Canon make my day!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 10, 2018)

Its possible, but a high end mirrorless should be up next. A 60mp body is nice, but not a big money maker quite yet.


----------



## jeanluc (Oct 10, 2018)

I sure hope this is true. 

A high MP landscape camera has mirrorless written all over it. I use my 5D4 in live view mode almost exclusively when on a tripod and shooting landscapes, so in effect it is "mirrorless". The speed and video things are not as important to a lot of those users.

I would order one tomorrow, since I have been awaiting an updated 5DSR with a modern sensor. If a 50 MP or so (hopefully not much more as this is already plenty) sensor with the DR/noise performance of the 5d4 is in this body, it is more than good enough and I think many 5DSR users would go for it.

Hopefully the tilt/flip screen of the R stays, since as a guy who is 6'5 it would be welcome for sure.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 10, 2018)

VORON said:


> And present 5DS cameras are outdated, waiting for replacement for too long.



They are? Wow, I had no idea!


----------



## scyrene (Oct 10, 2018)

I'm hardly sensor-centric, but I think they would have to do more than tweak the current 5Ds(R) sensor for it to be worth bringing out a new version, mirrorless or not.


----------



## ecpu (Oct 10, 2018)

scyrene said:


> I'm hardly sensor-centric, but I think they would have to do more than tweak the current 5Ds(R) sensor for it to be worth bringing out a new version, mirrorless or not.


I said the same thing about EOS R before it launched. I just wanted to see a step forward in sensor tech and not a 5DIV sensor. Not saying it's a bad sensor, it's just nothing new or exciting. Canon is not afraid of using old tech in new cameras. Look at 6DII and now EOS R. Based on these last two releases, I seriously doubt they will have a new sensor for a 5DSR mirrorless equivalent. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem likely.


----------



## Bekippe (Oct 10, 2018)

Well, for starters the 5DSR is not a DPAF camera, so that alone is a near absolute guarantee of a brand new sensor for whatever replaces it.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Oct 10, 2018)

So Canon is releasing a 26 mpx FF mirrorless & 50+ mpx FF mirroreless and FF DSLR next year along with 2 APS-C mirrorless camera?

Seems like alot of cameras for Canon to release next year.


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 10, 2018)

> Landscape shooters will likely love the circular polarizer and ND filter adapters available from Canon.]



The circular polarizer and ND filter adapters is of limited interest to me as you would sill need a holder attached to the front of the lens to use ND grads.


----------



## KT (Oct 10, 2018)

Other than the 1D x Mark III and perhaps the APS-C lines (90D and 7D mark III, etc...), I don't see any reason for Canon to invest in the DSLR business. They need to focus all their resources on catching up and passing Sony. Otherwise they will be confined to an also-ran category. They already invested heavily in a new mount system, the R and they need to build a new lens portfolio worthy of a pro and advanced amateur interest. They can't chase both DSLR and mirrorless at the same time.


----------



## ecpu (Oct 10, 2018)

KT said:


> Other than the 1D x Mark III and perhaps the APS-C lines (90D and 7D mark III, etc...), I don't see any reason for Canon to invest in the DSLR business. They need to focus all their resources on catching up and passing Sony. Otherwise they will be confined to an also-ran category. They already invested heavily in a new mount system, the R and they need to build a new lens portfolio worthy of a pro and advanced amateur interest. They can't chase both DSLR and mirrorless at the same time.


To me, this is part of their problem. Canon is terrified of losing DSLR sales... even if those same sales just move over to mirrorless. The EOS R is a perfect example of this. They made it clear multiple times at launch that the EOS R "IS NOT" a replacement for their DSLR system. Plus they made sure it fit right in between the 6D Mark II and 5D Mark IV to ensure it doesn't directly compete and therefore affect sales of either of those DSLR's.


----------



## RGF (Oct 10, 2018)

Right now IMO Canon was embarressed by Nikon when they introduced the Z6 and Z7. The R is a nice camera but it is outperformed by Nikon's offerings. An update to the 5Ds(R) would help restore Canon's leadership position,


----------



## sdz (Oct 10, 2018)

Minimum video capacity. Good.
DPAF. Yes.
IBIS. Yes.
AA. No.
50 MP. Yes.
2x Digic 8. Yes.
2x Card Slots. Yes.
WiFi. Yes.
GPS. Yes.

That's not much to ask for in a mirrorless camera. It improves a bit on it's mirrored parent. Any radical improvement would require a new sensor platform. We can read Waiting for Godot till that happens!


----------



## nitram (Oct 10, 2018)

RGF said:


> Right now IMO Canon was embarressed by Nikon when they introduced the Z6 and Z7. The R is a nice camera but it is outperformed by Nikon's offerings. An update to the 5Ds(R) would help restore Canon's leadership position,



If they really had been embarrassed, they could have reduced the price. Or maybe they will after half a year of sales - just long enough to squeeze the early adopters?


----------



## nitram (Oct 10, 2018)

Bekippe said:


> Well, for starters the 5DSR is not a DPAF camera, so that alone is a near absolute guarantee of a brand new sensor for whatever replaces it.



I think this pretty much says it all: new sensor design REQUIRED.


----------



## ecpu (Oct 10, 2018)

nitram said:


> I think this pretty much says it all: new sensor design REQUIRED.


I agree. Canon seems to have a new sensor for every new camera they release. But somehow each of those new sensors are about the same as the ones they replace. I would bet that the new sensor for this camera will be a modest improvement if any in DR and noise performance but will definitely include DPAF.

The point I was making earlier is just that Canon's new sensors tend to be curiously similar to those they succeed. I have serious doubts that they will drop a new high end sensor technology here such as BSI and catch up with Sony.


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 10, 2018)

Yep. High resolution body plus new R mount TS lenses. I'm in.


----------



## jvillain (Oct 10, 2018)

Canon wasn't embarrassed by Nikon. Nikon stated they were getting rid of the lower end of their lines so you have probably seen the bulk of Nikons camera line going forward. Canon released a mid level full frame and lots of people compare it to the absolute top of the line from every one so they can knock it. For the people that say Canon doesn't innovate, Canon is #5 on this list, Sony is #11 and Sony is spread out across far more industries. Are Canon cameras bleeding edge? No. But they tend to just work.

What Canon did do with the release of the EOS R and R lenses in particular is state we are in it to win it. The goal going forward in the near term is going to be getting people buying R lenses. A 5D mkV equivalent is more likely to do that than some thing niche like a 5DSR II equivalent for that reason. I also think you need the sales of the lower end 5D to help pay for the development of the 5DSR. So I suspect you will see a 5D before a 5DSR but that is just a guess.


----------



## ecpu (Oct 10, 2018)

jvillain said:


> Canon wasn't embarrassed by Nikon. Nikon stated they were getting rid of the lower end of their lines so you have probably seen the bulk of Nikons camera line going forward. Canon released a mid level full frame and lots of people compare it to the absolute top of the line from every one so they can knock it. For the people that say Canon doesn't innovate, Canon is #5 on this list, Sony is #11 and Sony is spread out across far more industries. Are Canon cameras bleeding edge? No. But they tend to just work.
> 
> What Canon did do with the release of the EOS R and R lenses in particular is state we are in it to win it. The goal going forward in the near term is going to be getting people buying R lenses. A 5D mkV equivalent is more likely to do that than some thing niche like a 5DSR II equivalent for that reason. I also think you need the sales of the lower end 5D to help pay for the development of the 5DSR. So I suspect you will see a 5D before a 5DSR but that is just a guess.


Interesting point about sales of one camera funding the development of another. From that perspective it would make sense to introduce a camera at the 5DIV level with dual slots, joystick, etc. as this should be a good seller. Ultra high 60MP resolution camera would certainly not bring in as many sales... as least I wouldn't think so anyway.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Oct 10, 2018)

I'm curious to see how small the dual-pixel AF photodiode sizes can go and still be effective for high resolution full-frame sensors. The 24MP APS-C cameras with DPAF are fielding 3.7 micrometer photodiodes, so Canon could make 59.5MP full-frame sensor using the same size pixels. Definitely more to the equation than just the size of the pixels, but Canon's DPAF is one of the most unique sensor designs out there, and I think they may be limited in ultra-high resolution configurations by having to split the photodiode the way they do with DPAF.


----------



## RGF (Oct 10, 2018)

Not sure if they price is that much out of line. The 6D M2 body is $2000. The R is $2300. Just that Nikon introduced 2 cameras to Canon's 1 and Nikon's Z7 is close to top of line with the D850 sensor (or very similar). I think Canon may have reduced the intro price after seeing Nikon's offering but no way to know for sure since none of us (at least I am not, are you?) are part of the Nikon product introduction team.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 10, 2018)

Canon and Nikon have been leap frogging each other for years. "Canon was embarrassed by Nikon when they introduced the Z6 and Z7 "... is just a stupid statement. Looking ahead, it will most likely be Canon and Sony (with Nikon dead) or Canon, Nikon and Sony (with Sony as a niche ILC player).


----------



## traveller (Oct 10, 2018)

Whilst I am not totally again the idea, I would hope that if the 5DS replacement does "go EOS R", Canon first manages to iron out some of the ergonomics and performance bugs. 

With the caveat that I haven't yet had the opportunity to try the EOS R myself, it doesn't seem like any of the early reviewers are that bowled over with the new touch bar interface, nor the loss of the joystick. Personally, I also feel the power button is poorly placed for a mirrorless camera that needs to be shut down a lot of the time to conserve battery. 

I am also a bit concerned with some of the performance aspects, most obviously the EOS R dropping to 3fps when using tracking priority. Whilst this isn't a big deal for landscape shooters, there are lots of other action photography users (such as birders) who use like to use a high resolution body to get more "pixels on target". Beyond moaning about eye detect not being available in continuous shooting mode, we have also yet to see in depth tests of how the AF system performs compared to a dedicated PDAF system (like in the 5D Mark 4). 

Lets see how the EOS R settles in before passing judgment on whether an "EOR RS" instead of a 5DS Mk. II is a good thing or not...


----------



## dadohead (Oct 10, 2018)

Now this I would buy. An Otus on this without an AA filter would really shine and be a direct threat to an X1d.


----------



## Tom W (Oct 10, 2018)

It would seem like a good idea for a very high resolution body to be a mirrorless type R. I think the DSLR will stick around for the action for a while, but for the world of very high resolution, a mirrorless design along with a couple of supreme lenses would be a great move. IMHO, of course...


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 10, 2018)

bitm2007 said:


> The circular polarizer and ND filter adapters is of limited interest to me as you would sill need a holder attached to the front of the lens to use ND grads.


Just wait for the new R adapter with electronic Liquid Crystal ND Grad.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 10, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I said the same thing about EOS R before it launched. I just wanted to see a step forward in sensor tech and not a 5DIV sensor. Not saying it's a bad sensor, it's just nothing new or exciting. Canon is not afraid of using old tech in new cameras. Look at 6DII and now EOS R. Based on these last two releases, I seriously doubt they will have a new sensor for a 5DSR mirrorless equivalent. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem likely.



Well I have to differ with you in that - I don't think they needed to put out a world-beating sensor for their first FF MILC, and the 5D4 sensor is by most accounts good. The R line is offering other things - slightly smaller size, new options for lenses, etc. But the 5Ds(R) sensor is an older generation tha the 5D4's, with some concomitant limitations (though it is still excellent), and I don't think it would be worth Canon's time to simply plop it into an R-style body at this point. Especially given that its primary customers (so people say - I'm atypical in using it for general purpose/wildlife) are studio and landscape/architecture folk, for whom a smaller body is much less compelling.


----------



## LDS (Oct 10, 2018)

IMHO for a 5DS type of camera viewfinder, and even size most of the time, matter little. For most studio/landscape/architecture photography probably the camera is on a sturdy tripod (so stabilizer features matter little also) and live view is used instead of the viewfinder. Probably a viewerfinderless camera would work well too, albeit it would be limited to that specific type of work.

FPS are also a non issue, for that type of work. What's the ratio of wildlife photographers getting a 7D/1D compared to those getting a 5DS?

That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see a RS - it's cheaper to build, and Canon could deliver some fancy lenses. For EF use, the drop-in filter adapter is still limited to a single filter, and while useful, it's not a killer feature.

I think I would buy a discounted 5DS, if and when they become available...


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2018)

scyrene said:


> They are? Wow, I had no idea!


Can't understand some of these people. Most of them don't even own the gear they bemoan. On the other hand, everyone knows a camera can't take good photos once new tech comes onto the market.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 10, 2018)

I'll be honest and say I'm not necessarily in a hurry for them to come out and replace the 5DS/R. The current one suits me just fine, and frankly I prefer its richer OOC color output/rendering to that of the 5D4 and the newer DPAF cameras. If its replacement has 5D4-type colors, and/or produces a softer output (with or without an AA filter) I will be keeping the older camera for sure (at the very least, it will always have a place). That being said, one clear advantage of a mirrorless variant would be further reduced vibration, which would be nice.

Middle ground: if a replacement is at least 2-3 years away, how about a "firmware 2.0" update like Canon did with the 7D to add a few more features? Namely C-Raw support and actual crop functions? I can only imagine having a C-Raw 5DS file the same size as a full-size 5D4 Raw file...


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 10, 2018)

I was hoping the next 5Ds would be a 5Ds R mirrorless.

But what if Canon release a 50+ mp mirror-less and a few weeks later releases a new 5Ds R II DSLR with even more mp. What do we do? Which do we buy?
To much anxiety.


----------



## bgoyette (Oct 10, 2018)

Let's hope this rumor is a true one. 15 years ago we were starting to see the effects of mirror slap on MF digital Hasselblad's at 22mp even at higher shutter speeds, and today generally I end up keeping my 5dsr locked down or the mirror locked up if I want things to be tack sharp. With Hasselblad, we started clamoring for a mirrorless solution a full 5 years before it came along, as the mirror is the problem, and frankly optical viewfinders are of almost no use once you get to this level of resolution. Consistent manual focusing is not possible, as the OVF doesn't resolve as much as the sensor. For high MP cameras, mirrorless is the only way to go.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 10, 2018)

KT said:


> Other than the 1D x Mark III and perhaps the APS-C lines (90D and 7D mark III, etc...), I don't see any reason for Canon to invest in the DSLR business. They need to focus all their resources on catching up and passing Sony. Otherwise they will be confined to an also-ran category. They already invested heavily in a new mount system, the R and they need to build a new lens portfolio worthy of a pro and advanced amateur interest. They can't chase both DSLR and mirrorless at the same time.



Yes they can and why should they? Because DSLRs are still a big seller. It's pretty basic business. You're off topic anyhow but chasing pros and 'advanced amateurs' is not how Canon maintains its market dominance.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 10, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Can't understand some of these people. Most of them don't even own the gear they bemoan. On the other hand, everyone knows a camera can't take good photos once new tech comes onto the market.



Heh. And there's me, going back to the 5D3 from the 5Ds because it's almost as good most of the time and I don't need the huge file sizes! My pics must be terrible taken with such antiquated equipment


----------



## ecpu (Oct 10, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Heh. And there's me, going back to the 5D3 from the 5Ds because it's almost as good most of the time and I don't need the huge file sizes! My pics must be terrible taken with such antiquated equipment


lmao. it has nothing to do with you or your camera's ability to take good pics. It has everything to do with getting value for your investment. Just because I can afford the EOS R, doesn't mean it's the best way to spend $2300 considering I can get more performance for the money. Do I "need" the extra performance? Perhaps not, but why would I want LESS for MORE money?


----------



## jebrady03 (Oct 10, 2018)

I agree that Canon likes to recycle tech (is that even up for debate?) but rather than recycle the 50mp FF sensor, why not go with a FF version of the 80D sensor? Here's the math...

1.6x crop x 1.6x crop = 2.56 (that's how much larger a Canon FF sensor is vs a Canon APSC sensor).
The 80D is 24.2 mp so 24.2 x 2.56 = 61.95mp (aka, 62mp).

A 62mp, DPAF, on-sensor ADC sensor would be fairly well received, IMO. Would it be best in class at DXO? No. But, Canon sensors never are.

Combine that with some insanely sharp RF glass and you have a winner, IMO.


----------



## RGF (Oct 11, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> I was hoping the next 5Ds would be a 5Ds R mirrorless.
> 
> But what if Canon release a 50+ mp mirror-less and a few weeks later releases a new 5Ds R II DSLR with even more mp. What do we do? Which do we buy?
> To much anxiety.



This could be very confusing. 5Ds R and 5D s RR where the R means mirrorless. I think Canon may have painted themselves into a name corner so the w/ the R meaning both cancelling the low pass filter cancellation and Mirrorless. I suspect that Canon will follow Nikon (which I know is blasphemy to even suggest such heresy) and include remove the low pass filter from the 5Ds Mirrorless. I don't think it will be called at 5Ds R.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 11, 2018)

I hope not but I reckon they'd produce it with the 5DSR sensor or a slightly tweaked version of it.
A 5D IV sensor would be much better
I have both and I trust the 5D IV much more.
The 5DSR is capable but needs low ISO to perform well


----------



## ecpu (Oct 11, 2018)

Imagine they gave it IBIS
Just kidding.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 11, 2018)

RGF said:


> Right now IMO Canon was embarressed by Nikon when they introduced the Z6 and Z7. The R is a nice camera but it is outperformed by Nikon's offerings. An update to the 5Ds(R) would help restore Canon's leadership position,


I'm trying to imagine what exactly you mean by "embarrassed." You mean the engineers, the executives, and the marketing folk don't want to be seen in better sushi restaurants in Tokyo? Are they ashamed to go to trade shows because the Nikon folk are gloating? Is it hard for them to wake up mornings because they are just too embarrassed to leave the house? Could you tell us what you mean?
Thanks!


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 11, 2018)

RGF said:


> This could be very confusing. 5Ds R and 5D s RR where the R means mirrorless. I think Canon may have painted themselves into a name corner so the w/ the R meaning both cancelling the low pass filter cancellation and Mirrorless. I suspect that Canon will follow Nikon (which I know is blasphemy to even suggest such heresy) and include remove the low pass filter from the 5Ds Mirrorless. I don't think it will be called at 5Ds R.



I think 5DsRR is the way to go- RR for short. It’s definitely a pirate’s camera


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 11, 2018)

Ideally, they would maintain at least one 5DS/R DSLR and a MILC equivalent, but it really depends on how sales are going of the existing line.


----------



## herion (Oct 11, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> I think 5DsRR is the way to go- RR for short. It’s definitely a pirate’s camera



"R-squared" has more of a ring to it


----------



## Sean C (Oct 11, 2018)

Do they have the on sensor focus working well enough to abandon the mirror cameras? I thought the performance still lagged fairly far behind the best in class SLR focus performance.
If there is a gap, why wouldn't Canon release R cameras where slower but accurate focus is just fine while they gain market acceptance? That'd be a good fit for a high rez studio/landscape camera.
I guess you'd need to know their sales numbers, and also the marketing info regarding folks switching to other systems and why. (is the volume increasing or not? Which segments? Does Canon have a prototype that'd stop that trend in a profitable way, or it it better to lure with best in class lenses?)

With no clear roadmap it'll give folks cold feet about buying EF lenses I'd think. (think they'd make a commitment like: EF lenses will continue to work on newly release R bodies via adapter for at least X years into the future? That's change the value proposition, wouldn't it?)


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 11, 2018)

NancyP said:


> If a new high resolution camera with a more advanced sensor (more dynamic resolution and no pattern noise) became available for EF mount, I would buy it.


The adapter glass size will be small (compared to front element filters) and should be good quality but I am yet to see any reviews of the adapters (CPL/VarND). Would be great to see if the wide angle CPL issues with blue sky are reduced using rear element filters vs front element.
One less filter on the front also reduces vignetting for wide angle shots and certainly less pain to add ND and associated focusing issues using a variable ND. I could potentially use the var ND adapter as sunrise light strengthens and together with a 5 stop front element ND (screw in) for pre-focus before going to 10 stop. Grad ND would always be needed on the front but we already have filters/step-up rings for this.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I agree. Canon seems to have a new sensor for every new camera they release. But somehow each of those new sensors are about the same as the ones they replace. I would bet that the new sensor for this camera will be a modest improvement if any in DR and noise performance but will definitely include DPAF.



There haven't been anything but "modest" improvements in high ISO for years now. The brand new D850 is probably the best high ISO FF body out right now, and looking at test images (rather than DxO scores) I would place it at 1/2, maybe 2/3 stop ahead of the 3 year old 5Ds. Imaging Resource print evaluation tests would suggest the same.

The 5D IV is has a good 1.5 stop advantage on the 5Ds in terms of DR, putting it within 1 stop of the D850 and A7rIII. Would that gain be modest or substantial?



> The point I was making earlier is just that Canon's new sensors tend to be curiously similar to those they succeed. I have serious doubts that they will drop a new high end sensor technology here such as BSI and catch up with Sony.



Sensors are incremental designs even when they appear to the public to be "brand new." Sony just hypes their increments more than Canon.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 11, 2018)

I'm going to go against the grain and say that I hope there is a DSLR (OVF) version of the 5Ds mk II, regardless of whether or not they also do a mirrorless version. And that they keep the AA/no AA option.

Why DSLR? I've been on extended, multi-day hikes where battery life and weather sealing were critical. An OVF camera with the same generation of electronics will always go longer on a battery. And the idea of adapted glass in pouring rain still makes me a bit nervous. 

Another issue is that shooting astro-landscapes through an EVF is a pain. You basically blind one eye while the other remains more dark adapted, and the Milky Way often gets swamped in gain noise while remaining clearly visible in an OVF.

Why AA? The 5Ds + 24-70 f/2.8 II (among many lenses I'm sure) will still moire despite the AA filter. It's just not as often nor as bad as the 5DsR. The sharpness differences are so tiny...a tick on a sharpening slider...that some of us would rather have a bit of moire insurance. I can think of one wedding photo in particular where, judging by the slight aliasing effects across the groom's jacket, and the one part of his shirt that did break out into moire, the AA filter was the difference between a little work and cleaning half the photo.

Of course what I want and what Canon will eventually provide are not necessarily the same thing.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 11, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Heh. And there's me, going back to the 5D3 from the 5Ds because it's almost as good most of the time and I don't need the huge file sizes! My pics must be terrible taken with such antiquated equipment


It depends what you are using it for whether the 5D3 is as good as the 5D3. Let’s face it, an iPhone is far better than a 5D3 for the zillions of tourists taking selfies.


----------



## Chris_BC (Oct 11, 2018)

Horrible, horrible, stupid idea. I have zero interest in mirrorless cameras, period. Having seen the tiny little Sonys in the flesh, they appear to be made for small Asian women's hands, actually. The Canon EOS R is larger, but still much smaller than my 5DsR. The 5DsR fits my hands, and offers a good mounting point for big lenses such as the 11-24L and 100-400L I have, among other L lenses. Using these lenses on a much smaller body would be far less ergonomic. (I also hand hold the 5DsR quite often in bright light with very good results, contrary to what many "experts" said about it after its release.)

I also want the optical viewfinder. Other than making the camera smaller and lighter, which I don't want or need since I don't have dainty hands and/or weak arms, mirrorless offers me nothing. I don't see ever running out of shutter actuations based on my upgrade times either.

I wonder what % of pros, men in particular, really are super interested in more dainty cameras just for the novelty and size/weight difference of mirrorless. If Canon opts to take its current megapixel king down to what I would call a gimmick/trend camera, I'll be concerned that DSLRs may be headed the route of the high end stereo equipment of the 1970s and 1980s. For the most part high end stereo options are few are far between compared to what they used to be. There is enough pressure on DSLR sales already via smartphones and other cheaper options. Trying to mitigate that by forcing current model lines to mirrorless options is kind of like Windows 8 and 8.1 being launched as a response to Android and iOS, where Microsoft thought desktop users would be fine with a smartphone style OS. Another horrible idea, and those 2 options bombed horribly in fitting fashion. (Win 10 has only overtaken Win 7 recently due to free upgrades to Win 10 and the looming axe of no future updates forcing the corporate world to switch over.)

If Canon has decided it needs to offer more mirrorless to respond to Sony and NIkon, without compromising the feature set of exiting DSLRs and certainly without changing any 5D models to mirrorless, fine. Go for it, but get the 5DsR Mark II released within the next 3 to 6 months with useful upgrades and no AA filter at all, and with the mirror and existing form factor intact.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Oct 11, 2018)

I had both the EOS R and the Nikon Z7 in my hands twelve days ago at Photokina and was really surprised about the quality of the viewfinders, but did not really get warm with the cameras. For me the only really advantage of those cameras is having the shorter distance between the lens and the sensor. Most of the other advantages could be achieved by simply improving Live View. In Live View a DSLR basically is a mirrorless camera. Only the digital viewfinder is missing, but I could imagine solutions for that. For example a transparent LCD (they already exist) which could make the viewfinder optical and digital at the same time.

Maybe I am a little old school, but for me it is important to see the subject with my own eyes and not on a screen that looks like reality. I also do not like the idea that mirrorless cameras use whole rows of pixels on the sensor just for autofocus. A few day ago the Northrups posted a video that shows that the EOS R sensor shows strong horizontal banding if you lift up the dark areas. That's what I always feared when I first heard of the idea of using camera pixels for autofocus. Sadly even some modern DSLRs do the same. For me that is a bug, not a feature. I would rather get rid of Live View and video at all if that means that all my pixels are used for recording light again.

And beeing light is not and advantage in my opinion. I bought a 1D X, because I wanted a big and heavy camera for my big hands. Back then there already was a 5D Mark III, which was almost the same camera as the 1D X for half the price, but I hated the fact that you had to add a battery grip to make it big and heavy. If I ever buy a mirrorless camera, I want it to be 1D X size, but not the price I hope.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 11, 2018)

I see a lot of arguments to make a mirrorless followup of the 5Ds(R):
* DPAF has the potential of very reliable AF where it counts: at the AF spot, without any AFMA
necessary, not disturbed by e.g. atmospheric turbulence, available e.g. with 5.6 400 + 2x TC etc.
* EVF is the only chance to use DPAF under bright conditions or if you use a tele lens (holding it)
* omitting the mirror REDUCES VIBRATIONS - I have a very good hit rate with M50 @ longer exp times
* potential to be lighter / smaller (more capacity for other stuff like tripod = landscape photog)
* as mentioned by others: Easily usable filters for e.g. 11-24 lens
* slower performance of the DPAF sensors in terms of frame rate
isn't that critical for landscape / architecture / product photography
 * EDIT: forgotten one argument:
50 MPix is roughly 9k x 6k pixels - I see a 1.1 crop 4k mode by binning 2x2 pixels together without
to much computing overhead ... 

The only drawback is - for hiking landscape photographers - the intrinsically higher power consumption of these cameras but just the lower end M50 can do 300-500 shots with eco mode enabled and a lot of reviewing of photos on the camera.


----------



## Andreos (Oct 11, 2018)

Skyscraperfan said:


> A few day ago the Northrups posted a video that shows that the EOS R sensor shows strong horizontal banding if you lift up the dark areas.



Dpreview has also confirmed this banding. And, now that I own an A7III, I can testify that it does not have any such banding, despite having a PDAF sensor. The fact the EOS R has the banding is entirely due to Canon's relatively deficient engineering.


----------



## mirage (Oct 11, 2018)

Not even a question to me. 
* Canon [almost] "admitted" via interview statements re. current sensor readout speeds and DIGIC computing power limits - that they are not able to launch a "mirrorfree 1D-X III" / Sony A9-type EOS R body anytime soon yet
* so second EOS R body has gotta be "hi-rez, low fps" with 50+ MP DP-AF sensor ... maybe even 60 - 75 MP - whatever their available DIGICs can handle, "just to outdo" Nikon Z7 and Sony A7R III in one spec at least. AA filter yes/no is a question - for some reason Canon seems to be really enamored with them.
* with EOS R lineup, no need whatsoever for a mirrorslapper any more in that market segment in 2019. EF lenses keep working, with CPL or ND or control ring options on top.

End of slapping is near.


----------



## mirage (Oct 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Is it hard for them to wake up mornings because they are just too embarrassed



yes, i do believe that quite some of the highly capable Canon engineers and product managers are embarrassed many mornings by the decisions forced upon them by top-brass, ultra-conservative octagenarians as well as "slightly younger" head honchos.


----------



## M_S (Oct 11, 2018)

I had the oportunity to test out the EOS R at Photokina. Eye AF did not work reliable and was a total failure on my copy. Even with a well lit face and eyes in the frame it did not hook onto them. The assistant was puzzled as was I. The M-FN bar is not for me either, I can't think of a situation where I will be using it, if some day I will get me one of these cameras. Button layout was uncomfortably different from my 5dsr that it took not long to skip the body and concentrate on the lenses. Lenses on the other hand are a joy to use. The 28-70 is heavy but tack sharp. 
If they work on the body (just a 5D body with all the buttons) I will give it another look. As it stands I will use my 5dsr for a while.


----------



## tron (Oct 11, 2018)

For now I would be interested in a DSLR update. If Nikon can do it (D850) Canon should also. I would consider it for the 3rd iteration.


----------



## Chris Charles (Oct 11, 2018)

mirage said:


> End of slapping is near.




If you are still having trouble with 5Ds(R) camera shake after this long, maybe mirrorless is your best option.
The 7D II has the same pixel pitch but you don't have this incessant whining about camera shake with it. Users sharpened their techniques & got on with it.
I am waiting for a an upgrade to make the 5Ds(R) II even better, not something dumbed down to make manufacturing cheaper.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Heh. And there's me, going back to the 5D3 from the 5Ds because it's almost as good most of the time and I don't need the huge file sizes! My pics must be terrible taken with such antiquated equipment



I've been very happy with mine. I'll use it until it wears out. I think I'd say that even if I were a pro.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2018)

ecpu said:


> lmao. it has nothing to do with you or your camera's ability to take good pics.



Lmfao! Sure it does. Actually, good photos depend far more on me than the gear.



ecpu said:


> It has everything to do with getting value for your investment.



Lmfao! That's exactly the point.

People whine and complain that a new camera is no better than the last camera and they've used neither. Ever. They look at spec sheets and draw conclusions. Just as bad, they watch YouTube videos and let conclusions be drawn for them.

I think our point is that all the hand wringing doesn't happen with us. We see that what we have is great. It works, etc. Yet there are those who will pronounce it as being not good enough and their upgrading as essential, but that Canon can't produce a decent camera so they can't produce decent photos. Maybe upgrading is essential, in their minds. But the point was that many of the whiners never own the products the new stuff replaces and will never own the new stuff and are dying to switch to Sony... which they will also never do.

I tend to drive a car "until the wheels fall off". I'm not one of those guys that trades every year or two. I get a whole lot of value for my money (cameras and daily drivers are not investments). Is the next iteration of what I'm driving "better"? Not for my purposes because the point of the car in my world is transportation, not to impress anybody. Not even to impress myself. Getting a newer car will never make me a better driver. Getting a newer camera will never make me a better photographer. Wants are an entirely different story.


----------



## tron (Oct 11, 2018)

I do not know who are considered as "the average 5Ds users" that CR guy says that he believes they wouldn't be bothered by the use of the adaptors but I know I would.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Oct 11, 2018)

RGF said:


> Right now IMO Canon was embarressed by Nikon when they introduced the Z6 and Z7. The R is a nice camera but it is outperformed by Nikon's offerings. An update to the 5Ds(R) would help restore Canon's leadership position,



I highly doubt Canon was embarrassed by Nikon with the Z6 and Z7. If anything, Nikon should be embarrassed releasing a $3,000 "pro" Z7 and launching it with lackluster lenses. Canon's EOS R may be lacking in some video features, but its AF, higher resolution sensor for an entry level FF mirrorless, and better lenses at launch are what matter more to photographers. Better EOS R bodies will come soon, but lenses are the real investment in any system and Canon's EOS R system already has a good start on that.


----------



## tron (Oct 11, 2018)

... and both CR1 and ... vague terms. This seems like a thread to inspire conversation and nothing more. Not necessarily bad of course since I truly hope it is just that  The reason: The only way the 5DsR replacement is going to be a proper superset of the current model is to be a DSLR one


----------



## ecpu (Oct 11, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Lmfao! Sure it does. Actually, good photos depend far more on me than the gear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again missing my point. My point IS that it's the person that takes the photos and any camera in the right hands can be good enough - we agree here. Also, I'm not saying that in general we need to upgrade every time a new camera comes out because it's better on paper. For me, I've been looking for an upgrade for a few months now and since I'm in the market for a new camera, my point is that it would make the most sense to get the most for my money. Not something that's marginally better (at best) than 3 year old cameras. Not because it can't take good pictures. It absolutely can. I can take good pictures with my girlfriends T6i... this is not the point. But, because I am making an investment I want the absolute most for that money. And it is a fact that the two main competitors to EOS R offer more for less.


----------



## dba101 (Oct 11, 2018)

yes, i do believe that quite some of the highly capable Canon engineers and product managers are embarrassed many mornings by the decisions forced upon them by top-brass, ultra-conservative octagenarians as well as "slightly younger" head honchos.

Oh please give it a rest.
Go take some photos and smile


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Again missing my point. My point IS that it's the person that takes the photos and any camera in the right hands can be good enough - we agree here. Also, I'm not saying that in general we need to upgrade every time a new camera comes out because it's better on paper. For me, I've been looking for an upgrade for a few months now and since I'm in the market for a new camera, my point is that it would make the most sense to get the most for my money. Not something that's marginally better (at best) than 3 year old cameras. Not because it can't take good pictures. It absolutely can. I can take good pictures with my girlfriends T6i... this is not the point. But, because I am making an investment I want the absolute most for that money. And it is a fact that the two main competitors to EOS R offer more for less.



Hmmm... I thought *your* point was a response to *my* point. You kept using the word* "you"* as though you were telling *us* what *we* needed to know for* our* situation. Didn't realize *we* were remarking about* your* personal situation as though *our* perspective and reasons should carbon copy *yours*. Don't think what *we* said had anything to do with *you*. You* "lmao"ed* about what *we* said about *our* personal situation and injected *your* thoughts about *your* personal situation. So *you* have no point as it pertains to* us*. *We* know* our* needs better than *you*.

We understood each other well. *You*, the third wheel in the conversation, misunderstood that it was about *you*.



ecpu said:


> *lmao*. it has nothing to do with *you or your* camera's ability to take good pics. It has everything to do with getting value for *your* investment.



There's a really cool word: *"My"*. Try it sometime.

Now, go buy your Sony.


----------



## SaP34US (Oct 11, 2018)

How long had the EOS R been in devlopement before they announced it last month and released 2 days ago?
I now that the two Panasonic FF coming out next year took 8 years from start to announcementlast month.


----------



## ecpu (Oct 11, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Hmmm... I thought *your* point was a response to *my* point. You kept using the word* "you"* as though you were telling *us* what *we* needed to know for* our* situation. Didn't realize *we* were remarking about* your* personal situation as though *our* perspective and reasons should carbon copy *yours*. Don't think what *we* said had anything to do with *you*. You* "lmao"ed* about what *we* said about *our* personal situation and injected *your* thoughts about *your* personal situation. So *you* have no point as it pertains to* us*. *We* know* our* needs better than *you*.
> 
> We understood each other well. *You*, the third wheel in the conversation, misunderstood that it was about *you*.
> 
> ...


Interesting response. I have concerns, but I'll leave it alone because I dont want to prompt another response like that.

And I did order a Sony A7iii and 24-70 f2.8 lens. But I have to wait "1 to 3 months" because where I live these cameras are still out of stock everywhere. Will keep my Canon for now as well so I can compare the two systems. Exciting times.


----------



## Charles Hansen (Oct 11, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The most exciting piece of equipment I've used in many, many years is the Fujifilm X-T2. It has no AA (low-pass) filter in front of the sensor, dulling the image, and making it soft. This is critical to getting razor-sharp images right out of the camera. I think Canon should learn from this in the upcoming "Pro" mirrorless release. This central point CAN'T be emphasized enough. We can deal with possible moire in post. (BTW, this has never been an issue with my X-T2). This is coming from an ex 5DSr user.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 11, 2018)

Currently I am dealing with the 6D original and 7D2 sensors, and do not print large. I have been holding off on a high resolution sensor until there is additional sensor improvement re dynamic resolution or my existing cameras give up the ghost. I am looking at panorama to increase resolution if needed. Really, the things I want next are the upgrade parts for a spherical (multi row) pano set-up (I have just a single row nodal slide) and maybe the "lens foot" holder for the TS-E24 f/3.5 II. Easy-peasy shifts for higher resolution shots. One annoying thing about high resolution is need for more storage and more speed in computer.


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 11, 2018)

SaP34US said:


> How long had the EOS R been in devlopement before they announced it last month and released 2 days ago?
> I now that the two Panasonic FF coming out next year took 8 years from start to announcementlast month.


Bryan Carnathan over at "The Digital Picture" asked Canon reps at the big Hawaii EOS R release gala (for certain Pros) how long the EOS R had been in development - he did not get an answer from them. Meaning: they would not share that info with him.


----------



## melgross (Oct 11, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I said the same thing about EOS R before it launched. I just wanted to see a step forward in sensor tech and not a 5DIV sensor. Not saying it's a bad sensor, it's just nothing new or exciting. Canon is not afraid of using old tech in new cameras. Look at 6DII and now EOS R. Based on these last two releases, I seriously doubt they will have a new sensor for a 5DSR mirrorless equivalent. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem likely.


Well, the 5DmkIV sensor was itself brand new, much better than before, using new technology. The 5DR sensor was new, with slightly better specs than before, though with older technology.

If Canon just includes the amplifier on the sensor as they did with the mkIV sensor, it would gain a good stop right there.


----------



## melgross (Oct 11, 2018)

ecpu said:


> To me, this is part of their problem. Canon is terrified of losing DSLR sales... even if those same sales just move over to mirrorless. The EOS R is a perfect example of this. They made it clear multiple times at launch that the EOS R "IS NOT" a replacement for their DSLR system. Plus they made sure it fit right in between the 6D Mark II and 5D Mark IV to ensure it doesn't directly compete and therefore affect sales of either of those DSLR's.



I don’t think they’re terrified. But they have to see how this new business does before willy nilly discontinuing cameras that have done well for them. They also have to fill out the mirrorless body and lens lines. A lot of people are going to buy DSLRs until there are a lot more R lenses out. The DSLRs are tried and true, the R series isn’t yet.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 11, 2018)

Charles Hansen said:


> The most exciting piece of equipment I've used in many, many years is the Fujifilm X-T2. It has no AA (low-pass) filter in front of the sensor, dulling the image, and making it soft. This is critical to getting razor-sharp images right out of the camera. I think Canon should learn from this in the upcoming "Pro" mirrorless release. This central point CAN'T be emphasized enough. We can deal with possible moire in post. (BTW, this has never been an issue with my X-T2). This is coming from an ex 5DSr user.



Well, if Canon gets rid of the low-pass filter I will probably not buy a Canon again. I realize some folks prefer "razor sharp" images, but having at least one camera that has no low-pass filter, I strongly prefer the images from cameras that do. I prefer more realistic looking landscapes - not pics that seem artificially sharp. The human eye sees the large shapes and tends to ignore interior detail (Yes, they have done research on this) so it looks much more natural to see trees and not every single leaf - almost as if it is outlined. That's just my opiion, of course, but I have taken pics with my Olympus EM-1 (no filter) that go into the bin becaue of outlines that aren't really there and way too much detail that ruins some shots.


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 11, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Makes sense to me. My guess for the 2nd FF mirrorless has been basically this the entire time. Canon likes to use old tech over developing new stuff, so I predict the sensor from the 5DSR series but "updated/redesigned" in the same way the 5DIV sensor was "newly developed" for the EOS R. The camera may or may not have better controls such as a joystick for focus points and it's unlikely to have full frame 4K (no crop) or 120P at 1080 due to sensor tech and readout speeds, high 50MP resolution and same Digic 8 processor used in EOS R. I also wouldn't expect to see any IBIS implementation.
> 
> But, I'm certain that it will take incredibly sharp and detailed photos especially with the new RF lenses.
> 
> I'm personally more interested in what Canon might be able to do with a lower resolution sensor like 20-26 MP. Maybe we could get better DR, higher fps and full frame 4K.


L


ecpu said:


> Makes sense to me. My guess for the 2nd FF mirrorless has been basically this the entire time. Canon likes to use old tech over developing new stuff, so I predict the sensor from the 5DSR series but "updated/redesigned" in the same way the 5DIV sensor was "newly developed" for the EOS R. The camera may or may not have better controls such as a joystick for focus points and it's unlikely to have full frame 4K (no crop) or 120P at 1080 due to sensor tech and readout speeds, high 50MP resolution and same Digic 8 processor used in EOS R. I also wouldn't expect to see any IBIS implementation.
> 
> But, I'm certain that it will take incredibly sharp and detailed photos especially with the new RF lenses.
> 
> I'm personally more interested in what Canon might be able to do with a lower resolution sensor like 20-26 MP. Maybe we could get better DR, higher fps and full frame 4K.





ecpu said:


> Makes sense to me. My guess for the 2nd FF mirrorless has been basically this the entire time. Canon likes to use old tech over developing new stuff, so I predict the sensor from the 5DSR series but "updated/redesigned" in the same way the 5DIV sensor was "newly developed" for the EOS R. The camera may or may not have better controls such as a joystick for focus points and it's unlikely to have full frame 4K (no crop) or 120P at 1080 due to sensor tech and readout speeds, high 50MP resolution and same Digic 8 processor used in EOS R. I also wouldn't expect to see any IBIS implementation.
> 
> But, I'm certain that it will take incredibly sharp and detailed photos especially with the new RF lenses.
> 
> I'm personally more interested in what Canon might be able to do with a lower resolution sensor like 20-26 MP. Maybe we could get better DR, higher fps and full frame 4K.


You have a point about re purposing older tech but to counter that the 5DS/R was new tech. Same for the 5Dmk4. Hopefully we’ll see some brand new sensor tech moving forward. I think they needed to go with the repurposed 5Dmk4 sensor on the first EOS R body in order to get something to market this year to stay relevant. They have a lot of patents including stacked sensors. True they don’t rush things to market and deliver every bell and whistle which seems frustrating but on the other hand if your a professional consumer your not beta testing for them like the first two iterations of the Sony prosumer bodies before they got the kinks out. While the specs sheet doesn’t look as exciting what you do get is a reliable camera with good ergonomics, simple to use, and a workhorse that doesn’t have anything added to it that doesn’t yet meet the engineers standards. For instance the IBIS, Canon has stated they didn’t include because of battery or was it overheating issues (one of those). Even if other manufacturers got it right (IBIS) I’m glad Canon didn’t add it in if it wasn’t yet up to their standards. They have stated it’s coming soon.


----------



## ecpu (Oct 11, 2018)

Juangrande said:


> L
> 
> 
> You have a point about re purposing older tech but to counter that the 5DS/R was new tech. Same for the 5Dmk4. Hopefully we’ll see some brand new sensor tech moving forward. I think they needed to go with the repurposed 5Dmk4 sensor on the first EOS R body in order to get something to market this year to stay relevant. They have a lot of patents including stacked sensors. True they don’t rush things to market and deliver every bell and whistle which seems frustrating but on the other hand if your a professional consumer your not beta testing for them like the first two iterations of the Sony prosumer bodies before they got the kinks out. While the specs sheet doesn’t look as exciting what you do get is a reliable camera with good ergonomics, simple to use, and a workhorse that doesn’t have anything added to it that doesn’t yet meet the engineers standards. For instance the IBIS, Canon has stated they didn’t include because of battery or was it overheating issues (one of those). Even if other manufacturers got it right (IBIS) I’m glad Canon didn’t add it in if it wasn’t yet up to their standards. They have stated it’s coming soon.


I do agree that Canon cameras tend to be rock solid reliable. And I don't doubt that has something to do with holding back on new tech until it meets their standards for reliability. Can't argue with that. But like you said, it can be frustrating waiting for a specific feature for much longer than with other brands. I'm also super impatient lol. I would rather pay more for them to expedite the development of new tech rather than wait for possibly years through their normal process. I could see many people disagreeing with that though lol.


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 11, 2018)

RGF said:


> Right now IMO Canon was embarressed by Nikon when they introduced the Z6 and Z7. The R is a nice camera but it is outperformed by Nikon's offerings. An update to the 5Ds(R) would help restore Canon's leadership position,


I dunno, it depends on your needs. I personally have no use for video so I don’t even look at those specs and Canon has better native lenses out of the gate and in the near future. I think personally Canon has better ergonomics on the EOS R (I prefer a slightly larger body for comfort and control). The adapters on the Canon offer more options and benefits as well. I do wish Canon had a good IBIS system ready to go but I’m actually holding off for a higher MP body anyways and they have stated they are developing IBIS for future bodies.


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 11, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I do agree that Canon cameras tend to be rock solid reliable. And I don't doubt that has something to do with holding back on new tech until it meets their standards for reliability. Can't argue with that. But like you said, it can be frustrating waiting for a specific feature for much longer than with other brands. I'm also super impatient lol. I would rather pay more for them to expedite the development of new tech rather than wait for possibly years through their normal process. I could see many people disagreeing with that though lol.


I’m with you, I want it now.


----------



## ecpu (Oct 11, 2018)

Juangrande said:


> I dunno, it depends on your needs. I personally have no use for video so I don’t even look at those specs and Canon has better native lenses out of the gate and in the near future. I think personally Canon has better ergonomics on the EOS R (I prefer a slightly larger body for comfort and control). The adapters on the Canon offer more options and benefits as well. I do wish Canon had a good IBIS system ready to go but I’m actually holding off for a higher MP body anyways and they have stated they are developing IBIS for future bodies.


Yea I could see IBIS on future higher end bodies.

It is unfortunate about the video specs as somone who shoots a lot of video. It's particularly frustrating to see Canon - a company with a boatload of experience with video/cinema camera design, release a camera with lower video specs than a company that has little to no experience in video (nikon).


----------



## melgross (Oct 11, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Well, if Canon gets rid of the low-pass filter I will probably not buy a Canon again. I realize some folks prefer "razor sharp" images, but having at least one camera that has no low-pass filter, I strongly prefer the images from cameras that do. I prefer more realistic looking landscapes - not pics that seem artificially sharp. The human eye sees the large shapes and tends to ignore interior detail (Yes, they have done research on this) so it looks much more natural to see trees and not every single leaf - almost as if it is outlined. That's just my opiion, of course, but I have taken pics with my Olympus EM-1 (no filter) that go into the bin becaue of outlines that aren't really there and way too much detail that ruins some shots.



I don’t ever remember anyone else thinking like that before.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 11, 2018)

melgross said:


> I don’t ever remember anyone else thinking like that before.



I have observed that the unsharp mask sharpening in DPP gives very sharp pictures but also deletes natural transitions on the pixel level. Using the standard sharpening algorithm with sensible values (3 of 10) gives the best impression of textures and detail - maybe because it is a level where the enhancement brings the image closer to reality. Less makes fine detail soft - more makes it unnaturally sharp and the textures /detail are no longer natural.

So I am with dak723 that the right type and amount of sharpness counts, not the highest technical value of sharpness / microcontrast.


----------



## Treyarnon (Oct 11, 2018)

This is generally what I expect Canon to do. 
For sure, they could take the same sensor and pop it into the current 5D4 body for not a great deal of extra R&D outlay -> BUT canon has a new platform now (the R mount) - and migrating customers onto a new platform is a tricky business. A tasty new kickass high res sensor, exclusive to the 'R' mount might be just the ticket to get people to adopt the new mount.

I suspect that we won't see any more full frame DSLR's from Canon at all now.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 11, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> This is generally what I expect Canon to do.
> For sure, they could take the same sensor and pop it into the current 5D4 body for not a great deal of extra R&D outlay -> BUT canon has a new platform now (the R mount) - and migrating customers onto a new platform is a tricky business. A tasty new kickass high res sensor, exclusive to the 'R' mount might be just the ticket to get people to adopt the new mount.
> 
> I suspect that we won't see any more full frame DSLR's from Canon at all now.



On the contrary, I doubt that Canon will stop releasing new full frame DSLR's until the R lens line up is reasonably complete.

Or, Canon could also release more kick ass glass like the new RF 28-70 f2.


----------



## ecpu (Oct 11, 2018)

nchoh said:


> On the contrary, I doubt that Canon will stop releasing new full frame DSLR's until the R lens line up is reasonably complete.
> 
> Or, Canon could also release more kick ass glass like the new RF 28-70 f2.


If they're serious about mirrorless (which they better be) then they should get some some high quality RF glass out there as quickly as possible. Not just release the first 4 lenses then a couple more each year. At this point, the RF optics are more of a reason to get the EOS R than any feature offered by the EOS R. Hopefully they fill out the RF lineup quickly.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 11, 2018)

melgross said:


> I don’t ever remember anyone else thinking like that before.



You do now


----------



## Talys (Oct 11, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> I suspect that we won't see any more full frame DSLR's from Canon at all now.



I doubt this very much. For example, K437 is a full frame SLR already in the pipeline -

https://www.canonrumors.com/lots-of-new-mirrorless-and-dslr-cameras-in-the-pipeline/


----------



## scyrene (Oct 11, 2018)

ecpu said:


> lmao. it has nothing to do with you or your camera's ability to take good pics. It has everything to do with getting value for your investment. Just because I can afford the EOS R, doesn't mean it's the best way to spend $2300 considering I can get more performance for the money. Do I "need" the extra performance? Perhaps not, but why would I want LESS for MORE money?



You've made your feelings abundantly clear. I would hope everyone tries to get value for money, unless money is no object. You're the one who seems to care more about specs and the sensor in particular, from what I can tell, which makes me wonder, as getting the 5D4 sensor for nearly 1/3 less money seems like good value to me. There are other limitations of course, but that sounds pretty good value for the starting price (I'd never pay the RRP anyway, it's always better to wait).


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 12, 2018)

Andreos said:


> Dpreview has also confirmed this banding. And, now that I own an A7III, I can testify that it does not have any such banding, despite having a PDAF sensor. The fact the EOS R has the banding is entirely due to Canon's relatively deficient engineering.



How's that weather sealing?


----------



## Andreos (Oct 12, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> How's that weather sealing?



Better than I need it to be, I'm sure.

How is it down there, scraping the bottom of the barrel?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 12, 2018)

Charles Hansen said:


> The most exciting piece of equipment I've used in many, many years is the Fujifilm X-T2. It has no AA (low-pass) filter in front of the sensor, dulling the image, and making it soft. This is critical to getting razor-sharp images right out of the camera. I think Canon should learn from this in the upcoming "Pro" mirrorless release. This central point CAN'T be emphasized enough. We can deal with possible moire in post. (BTW, this has never been an issue with my X-T2). This is coming from an ex 5DSr user.



I'm sorry, but if you were getting soft or dull images from a 5DsR you had a glass problem or a technique problem. Or maybe something was wrong with the body itself. Neither a 5Ds nor a 5DsR is going to lose a sharpness battle to an XT-2, assuming good glass on both. (Not to knock the XT-2 in any way.)

Also: if the XT-2 is X-Trans then it's not nearly as sensitive to moire as Bayer sensors.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 12, 2018)

Andreos said:


> Better than I need it to be, I'm sure.



Are you? https://www.imaging-resource.com/ar...d850-vs-sony-a7riii-canon-5div-olympus-e-m1II

What were we talking about? Deficient engineering? Or banding? https://www.dpreview.com/news/6974141509/sony-striping-heres-the-fix

I guess we were talking about both.



> How is it down there, scraping the bottom of the barrel?



You were saying?


----------



## Chris_BC (Oct 12, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Well, if Canon gets rid of the low-pass filter I will probably not buy a Canon again. I realize some folks prefer "razor sharp" images, but having at least one camera that has no low-pass filter, I strongly prefer the images from cameras that do. I prefer more realistic looking landscapes - not pics that seem artificially sharp. The human eye sees the large shapes and tends to ignore interior detail (Yes, they have done research on this) so it looks much more natural to see trees and not every single leaf - almost as if it is outlined. That's just my opiion, of course, but I have taken pics with my Olympus EM-1 (no filter) that go into the bin becaue of outlines that aren't really there and way too much detail that ruins some shots.



One of the most bizarre comments I've ever seen on here. I don't know what you're reviewing your pictures on, or how you're post processing them from camera, or what your eyesight is like, or what sort of vision processing is going on in your brain. (I do see "EOS 77D" under your profile name.) I can tell you that I shoot mostly landscapes with a 5DsR with RAW output, and then I do some sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw and then a final Smart Sharpening in PS. I'm using a 43 inch 4K Philips monitor, so unless someone's out there using a special 8K TV set of some sort as a monitor, what I'm using is about the most revealing possible PC monitor you can have. (And BTW, it shows oversharpened images easily, and they range from bad to hideous.)

And the final result in many images is like looking out your window, or standing there looking at the scene. There is no "too much detail" (???) to be found. (Oversharpening via software does NOT create detail, it creates unnatural artifacts.) Granted, like the vast majority of photogs colors are enhanced but still natural looking, and in general acheivable with optimum lighting on the scene. If there's haze at all I work to cut it (including via the smart sharpen step), but again the final result is natural and what you would see on a clear to very clear day.

I can understand people who shoot a lot patterns not wanting to deal with moire and thus wanting an AA filter, but "too much detail" is just much too bizarre. Your claim about what the human eye sees also sounds ridiculous, as it would be highy dependent on the viewer, how long the viewer was pondering the scene, and what elements of the scene would tend to catch the viewer's eye. Other than quick glances, I'm certain most viewers are noticing various detailed elements.


----------



## Talys (Oct 12, 2018)

Andreos said:


> Better than I need it to be, I'm sure.
> 
> How is it down there, scraping the bottom of the barrel?





Andreos said:


> Better than I need it to be, I'm sure.
> 
> How is it down there, scraping the bottom of the barrel?


You must not need weather sealing then, because the bottom weather sealing is non-existant 

Which is fine; I rarely need weather sealing too, though I appreciate not having to worry about it if I'm caught out there and it starts raining or a big doggie decides to splash around a lot in a lake. But just sayin', the lack of weather sealing on the bottom makes it effectively not weather sealed at all if you use any inverted strap system like a back rapid, and arguably dicey with any clip system like Peak.


----------



## MartinF. (Oct 12, 2018)

I guess that 2020-2021 will tell us the future of Canon DSLR line and EF-line. As Canon has released updated (well not that updated...) versions of EF L-lenses they send a signal to customers that EF line (and by that DSLRs) are here to stay for years to come.

However - they also need to compete in the MILC segment -and by that release both new RF lines, but even more important also one or two high-end R-series cameras.

The question is - how many new/updated DSLRs will we see within the next 2 - 3 years. 7DmkII needs update for sure. The rest of EOS DSLR's is not that old given that Canon normal update rate for higher end cameras are 4 to 5 years. So new high end FF DSRLs with EF mount will probably be in 2020-21. 
2019-2020 will be R-line / RF-mount build up i guess.


----------



## Treyarnon (Oct 12, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> I'm sorry, but if you were getting soft or dull images from a 5DsR you had a glass problem or a technique problem. Or maybe something was wrong with the body itself. Neither a 5Ds nor a 5DsR is going to lose a sharpness battle to an XT-2, assuming good glass on both. (Not to knock the XT-2 in any way.)



Well... I suspect that it depends on how you are doing the test. The 5Ds should win the detail battle hands down, but detail and sharpness are not the same thing. Sharpness is generally a factor of technique, glass and post processing.


----------



## mirage (Oct 12, 2018)

MartinF. said:


> As Canon has released updated (well not that updated...) versions of EF L-lenses they send a signal to customers that EF line (and by that DSLRs) are here to stay for years to come.



not necessarily. Possibly those updates were (mainly) done to make those white EF L lenses "fit for use on EOS R" with adapter. Since there are no size or IQ advantages for long teles with RF mount, Canon will bring those only later on as RF lenses and focus on shorter FL glass first.


----------



## zim (Oct 12, 2018)

mirage said:


> not necessarily. Possibly those updates were (mainly) done to make those white EF L lenses "fit for use on EOS R" with adapter. Since there are no size or IQ advantages for long teles with RF mount, Canon will bring those only later on as RF lenses and focus on shorter FL glass first.



Very true about lenses but I suspect that the 7D and 1D lines will remain until the R line can equal or exceed what they can do. Of the two the 7D could be the first by putting in a real crop mode but that's not been Canon's style so far. (I don't think an APSC version of the R is necessary on that basis)


----------



## melgross (Oct 12, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> I have observed that the unsharp mask sharpening in DPP gives very sharp pictures but also deletes natural transitions on the pixel level. Using the standard sharpening algorithm with sensible values (3 of 10) gives the best impression of textures and detail - maybe because it is a level where the enhancement brings the image closer to reality. Less makes fine detail soft - more makes it unnaturally sharp and the textures /detail are no longer natural.
> 
> So I am with dak723 that the right type and amount of sharpness counts, not the highest technical value of sharpness / microcontrast.



I don’t think that’s exactly what he’s saying. He thinks the sensor can be too sharp. There’s a difference between critical sharpness in-camera, without manipulation, and post sharpness, using compute effects to accomplish the same thing. I’d much rather have it in the camera, off the sensor, than have to bring it back later. As far as I know, all RAW converters apply that small amount of sharpness to counteract the antialiasing filter over the sensor. No filter, and higher off the sensor sharpness means no need for that automatically applied sharpness correction.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 12, 2018)

melgross said:


> I don’t think that’s exactly what he’s saying. He thinks the sensor can be too sharp. There’s a difference between critical sharpness in-camera, without manipulation, and post sharpness, using compute effects to accomplish the same thing. I’d much rather have it in the camera, off the sensor, than have to bring it back later. As far as I know, all RAW converters apply that small amount of sharpness to counteract the antialiasing filter over the sensor. No filter, and higher off the sensor sharpness means no need for that automatically applied sharpness correction.



If the sharpness of the non-AA-filtered sensor is "real" and produces realistic textures and transitions: I would take it without hestitation but ... converting the Bayer-pattern to an image which has the same count of RGB pixels like the sum of R-, G- and B-pixels is strong manipulation of data and cannot lead to a perfect image - with or without AA as far as I see these things.

About Bayer decoding: If you move the sharpness slider to zero in DPP the images are soft - I think Canon shows the antialiased and debayered image without any sharpness applied (RAW file as input) and the sharpness applied is very realistic at e.g. 3 or 4 (out of 10).

EDIT/add:
My general idea of good tools is "make them flexible" - a switchable AA filter would be great maybe by a standing ultrasonic wave with tuneable frequency to alter AA effects - turn the ultrasonic transducers off and you have a homogenous liquid (between sensor and an additional glas plate) which is the no-AA state!
The same for mirroless / mirror: Make a combo OVF-EVF system to be prepared for all situations ...


----------



## Charles Hansen (Oct 12, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> I'm sorry, but if you were getting soft or dull images from a 5DsR you had a glass problem or a technique problem. Or maybe something was wrong with the body itself. Neither a 5Ds nor a 5DsR is going to lose a sharpness battle to an XT-2, assuming good glass on both. (Not to knock the XT-2 in any way.)
> 
> Also: if the XT-2 is X-Trans then it's not nearly as sensitive to moire as Bayer sensors.


The 5DSr should ideally be used with a tripod. if you can make that concession 100% of the time, god bless you. My point regarding the totally exciting, crisp and exciting look of the image coming from the X-T2 is not a sole observation of mine, but of many other thousands of photographers. This is why Fuji has become a juggernaut in the past couple years, just leap-frogging themselves at this point. I like Canon's build robustness, and great glass, but also like to pick up a camera, hand-hold, and take consistently great, crisp photos like the X-T2. If Canon were to have built-in IBIS to the 5DSr, I'd still have one. As far as the comment about being "too sharp", I have zero idea what this means. Too sharp optically does NOT exist. Too sharp in rendering software, _does. _


----------



## gdanmitchell (Oct 12, 2018)

For much of the photography I do with my 5DsR, a mirrorless version would be just fine. I usually use the camera on the tripod and mostly (with one important exception) work in live view mode. The latter point is important since I'm already dealing with the accelerated battery consumption that comes with live view usage. If a mirrorless 5DsR replacement is a bit smaller and lighter, that would be OK by me, too.

One concern is that I do use my 5DsR for wildlife photography, particularly to photography large migratory birds. So AF accuracy and 5DsR-level AF speed and consistency would be important.


----------



## mirage (Oct 12, 2018)

Although an APS-C EOS R is not impossible, I think Canon will keep EOS R line FF only. APS-C will be EOS M only, as soon as mirrorslappers (Rebels and anything xxD) are phased out. I am pretty sure there will be a 7D III (DSLR), but it'll be the last one.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 12, 2018)

Charles Hansen said:


> The 5DSr should ideally be used with a tripod. if you can make that concession 100% of the time, god bless you. My point regarding the totally exciting, crisp and exciting look of the image coming from the X-T2 is not a sole observation of mine, but of many other thousands of photographers. This is why Fuji has become a juggernaut in the past couple years, just leap-frogging themselves at this point. I like Canon's build robustness, and great glass, but also like to pick up a camera, hand-hold, and take consistently great, crisp photos like the X-T2. If Canon were to have built-in IBIS to the 5DSr, I'd still have one. As far as the comment about being "too sharp", I have zero idea what this means. Too sharp optically does NOT exist. Too sharp in rendering software, _does. _



"Too sharp" does exist because the pixels are laid out in grid pattern and the pixel density is still not high enough to hide the unnatural pattern.


----------



## baldermort (Oct 12, 2018)

Would be happy to have a replacement for my 5DSR
Would not be happy if that was trying to write really slowly to an SD-Card. Dual C-Fast would be much nicer
Do not need the video function to be any better than say a Nokia 6110i phone 
Would very much like lots of lovely dynamic range and MORE ISO
Have now managed to imprint the muscle memory when I switch from 5DSR to 1DX MKii, so willing to relearn where all the buttons and knobs and dials have moved to. 
Am I being overly greedy when I ask if it might not be possible to get one from Santa rather than the Easter Bunnies?


----------



## Act444 (Oct 12, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> About Bayer decoding: If you move the sharpness slider to zero in DPP the images are soft



Yup...most of the time too soft...however, in the case of the 5DS R, shoot it with the 85mm 1.4 IS at f4 and there is a surprising amount of detail and clarity in the RAW file even with no sharpening at all. By the time you get to 3.0, you are cutting-edge sharp, and by 3.5, you’re already introducing artifacts(!)...


----------



## nemophoto (Oct 12, 2018)

God, I hope not. As a 5Ds user, that would suck. Having used both my 5Ds and a friend's Sony a7R III, I'm not convinced of the usability in many situations I shoot and for my shooting style. My opinion may change after a rental of the EOS R, but I'm not likely to see it at this point. I also have to differ with the opinion that it represents a "niche product for Canon". That would be like saying the Nikon D850 or the Sony a7R III are niche products. I have been a (digital) lifelong user of the 1D series cameras. It was only grudgingly that I bought the 5Ds because I needed the resolution, but vastly prefer the handling of the 1D series. That said, on a recent shoot, where I shot over 725GB, over half were made with the 5Ds. As I said, far from a niche product...


----------



## nemophoto (Oct 12, 2018)

Oh, and I hate SD cards. I have 250GB of CF cards I use...


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 12, 2018)

Act444 said:


> Yup...most of the time too soft...however, in the case of the 5DS R, shoot it with the 85mm 1.4 IS at f4 and there is a surprising amount of detail and clarity in the RAW file even with no sharpening at all. By the time you get to 3.0, you are cutting-edge sharp, and by 3.5, you’re already introducing artifacts(!)...


At least you're not introducing the infamous Fuji worms 
The Canon raw files are "honest" data, let's keep it that way.


----------



## melgross (Oct 13, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> If the sharpness of the non-AA-filtered sensor is "real" and produces realistic textures and transitions: I would take it without hestitation but ... converting the Bayer-pattern to an image which has the same count of RGB pixels like the sum of R-, G- and B-pixels is strong manipulation of data and cannot lead to a perfect image - with or without AA as far as I see these things.
> 
> About Bayer decoding: If you move the sharpness slider to zero in DPP the images are soft - I think Canon shows the antialiased and debayered image without any sharpness applied (RAW file as input) and the sharpness applied is very realistic at e.g. 3 or 4 (out of 10).
> 
> ...



I agree with you. Because the photo sample sites are far apart, Bayer is needed. The antialiasing filter defocuses the image further to prevent that alias problem, so the situation is even worse.


----------



## melgross (Oct 13, 2018)

nchoh said:


> "Too sharp" does exist because the pixels are laid out in grid pattern and the pixel density is still not high enough to hide the unnatural pattern.



What? I’ve examined thousands of images from digital sources in my lab over the years, and have never seen that problem.


----------



## Equinox (Oct 14, 2018)

bitm2007 said:


> The circular polarizer and ND filter adapters is of limited interest to me as you would sill need a holder attached to the front of the lens to use ND grads.



There's always bracketing your exposure. Have you ever tried using a 14mm with filters on the front of the lens? Pain in the ass. Having either the CPL or ND at the rear will really help reduce flare and the weight of set up. Also if you have ND or CPL at the rear and a grad on the front you could have a slimmer holder meaning wider shots with limited vignette. As a landscape photographer it's exactly nd / cpl adapter that interest me the most out of all the features of the new R series capabilities.


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 14, 2018)

Would be a big mistake for Canon to remove the 5DS/R line. It remains their most unique DSLR product and offer. Move up to 80 or 120 MPIX they give DSLR another life line for several years to come.

This does not exclude a high MPIX mirrorless. Its just not a reason to close the 5DS/R line which btw kept its price much better than the 5DIV underlining a stable demand (even if I expect more 5DIVs have been sold).


----------



## melgross (Oct 14, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Would be a big mistake for Canon to remove the 5DS/R line. It remains their most unique DSLR product and offer. Move up to 80 or 120 MPIX they give DSLR another life line for several years to come.
> 
> This does not exclude a high MPIX mirrorless. Its just not a reason to close the 5DS/R line which btw kept its price much better than the 5DIV underlining a stable demand (even if I expect more 5DIVs have been sold).



Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirrorless with about the same feature set and an updated sensor? Wouldn’t that be better?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Oct 14, 2018)

Andreos said:


> Better than I need it to be, I'm sure.
> 
> How is it down there, scraping the bottom of the barrel?



Not sure why you defend a company. It's fanboyism.

Both Sony & Canon have deficiency in their camera. Both of them have banding issues and it need to be fix.

Canon need to have better continuous eyeAF and IBIS, 4K, slow mo, improve sensor, dual card slot
Sony need better ergonomic, weather sealing, menu, color science, EVF, fully touch screen with articulating LCD

All FF mirrorless camera have compromises and everyone have different needs and deal breaker. Pick a camera that fit your needs and go out there and shoot.


----------



## jeanluc (Oct 14, 2018)

melgross said:


> Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirrorless with about the same feature set and an updated sensor? Wouldn’t that be better?


Yes, I think it would. No doubt that ML/RF lenses will be the future.


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 14, 2018)

melgross said:


> Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirrorless with about the same feature set and an updated sensor? Wouldn’t that be better?


Because I like choice and because I have EF-lenses built and optimised for DSLR use.


----------



## tron (Oct 14, 2018)

melgross said:


> Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirrorless with about the same feature set and an updated sensor? Wouldn’t that be better?


Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirror only 5DsRII for starters? After a few years when they solve any problems found in EOS R (even if these are only handling related) they could also introduce a higher mpixel mirrorless body. Wouldn't that be better?

And, as Maiaibing says we have many EF lenses and maybe we would like to put them to our camera without adaptors. For myself think like 400 or 500mm lenses with or without Teleconverter.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 14, 2018)

melgross said:


> Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirrorless with about the same feature set and an updated sensor? Wouldn’t that be better?


Why would it be better ? I'm curious as to why you think this would be the case.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2018)

melgross said:


> I don’t think that’s exactly what he’s saying. He thinks the sensor can be too sharp. There’s a difference between critical sharpness in-camera, without manipulation, and post sharpness, using compute effects to accomplish the same thing. I’d much rather have it in the camera, off the sensor, than have to bring it back later. As far as I know, all RAW converters apply that small amount of sharpness to counteract the antialiasing filter over the sensor. No filter, and higher off the sensor sharpness means no need for that automatically applied sharpness correction.



The problem is that AA filters are about more than preventing moire. They also prevent subtle aliasing at high contrast edge transitions. In some ooc examples, especially compared to strong AA filter cameras, a camera without an AA filter can look really good. In others it comes off as too harsh, almost as if you over sharpened in post even though it's ooc.

In the specific case of the 5Ds and 5DsR I see very little difference either way. Assuming optimum conditions (lens; aperture; technique; subject movement) 5Ds RAWs are not soft ooc. It has a weak AA filter which I like. My preference is: Weak AA > No AA > Strong AA. 

And 5DsR images are not that harsh, though it can still get ugly on high contrast detail near extinction resolution. But it's not as dramatic as, say, 24mp AA vs. 24mp without AA.

Canon is very strong in wedding and fashion. I'm guessing that plays into the fact that they continue to ship with AA filters. I honestly hope they continue to offer the choice in the future.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2018)

Charles Hansen said:


> The 5DSr should ideally be used with a tripod. if you can make that concession 100% of the time, god bless you.



Nonsense. It doesn't break the laws of physics. A high enough shutter speed for conditions (subject motion; hand shake; IS) is a high enough shutter speed. I have no problem getting sharp images hand held even at higher ISOs. In fact, I think what the 5Ds can do hand held at ISO 3200 impresses me even more than what it can do tripod mounted at ISO 100 because I didn't expect the former.



> My point regarding the totally exciting, crisp and exciting look of the image coming from the X-T2 is not a sole observation of mine, but of many other thousands of photographers.



Fuji has a CFA arrangement that is in some ways superior to Bayer, and they are possibly the best company out there when it comes to in camera rendering and ooc quality. I have a great deal of respect for their system and if crop mirrorless was going to be my primary system, it would be Fuji. A 50mp 5Ds/5DsR will still win the sharpness contest every time all other factors being equal. That's not to say the X-T2 is not sharp or sharp enough. But the 5Ds/5DsR image will be sharp at sizes where the X-T2 image is not.



> As far as the comment about being "too sharp", I have zero idea what this means. Too sharp optically does NOT exist. Too sharp in rendering software, _does. _



Too sharp optically can exist with digital because of aliasing effects near the Nyquist limit. AA filters are about more than just moire.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 14, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Nonsense. It doesn't break the laws of physics. A high enough shutter speed for conditions (subject motion; hand shake; IS) is a high enough shutter speed. I have no problem getting sharp images hand held even at higher ISOs. In fact, I think what the 5Ds can do hand held at ISO 3200 impresses me even more than what it can do tripod mounted at ISO 100 because I didn't expect the former.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I assume he is saying the 5DSR is best used on a tripod and with this I would agree.
For me the 5DSR works best in ideal conditions and low ISO. I don't like it beyond 1600 ISO and try to keep it below that.
I find the 5D IV a much better all-round camera. 
There is alot of slowness in the 5DSR. The file size slows the camera down.
The 5D IV Is a much snappier camera.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 15, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> For me the 5DSR works best in ideal conditions and low ISO. I don't like it beyond 1600 ISO and try to keep it below that.



So many reviewers expressed the same opinion at launch, that the 5Ds/sr were "not high ISO cameras." Yet in every comparison I've done it has held its own. At equal view size 5Ds/sr noise is similar to the 5D IV but the 5Ds/sr are sharper ooc. Color splotching is a little higher but that disappears completely with a little color NR. 

I'll note that Imaging Resource, in their print evaluation test, ranked the 5Ds/sr very highly at higher ISOs. They even expressed their surprise at how good it was because they assumed it would not be. Is the difference of opinion literally down to pixel peeping? Comparing two cameras at 100% (5Ds magnified more) rather than equal view size?

I would rank ISOs 1600 and 3200 as phenomenal. One of my favorite 5Ds shots so far is a wedding shot at ISO 1600, cropped to about 28mp and printed 16x20. It's almost too sharp and detailed and this was a young couple. There's no noise or grain to speak of in print. It would stroke my ego to believe it's my amazing post processing skills, but the RAWs in image comparison tools like the one at dpreview don't need any processing to hold their own.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 15, 2018)

Shot the 5DSR recently in low-light - I was shooting with the 85mm at 1.4 after sunset at ISO 6400. I was a bit surprised at how good it actually was. It is better than my M6, actually! That put things in perspective for me. Having said all that, though, I find that the noise does not clean up as nicely (compared to, say, the 5D4), and sometimes you get "banding" patterns, particularly if you have to push the file in post. That is countered, though, by noticeably more detail in many cases. 

The 5DS/85 1.4 combo may be my new favorite. In good light, images need practically no PP at all, it is that good


----------



## Chris_BC (Oct 15, 2018)

melgross said:


> Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirrorless with about the same feature set and an updated sensor? Wouldn’t that be better?



Absolutely not! Do you have dainty hands and/or weak arms? Mirrorless only offers smaller size and lighter weight. If you're worried about vibrations from the mirror there is the mirror lock up option already in place. (And in many if not most instances that tiny bit of vibration makes no noticeable difference even if you don't use the lock up.)

Conceivably in the future processing power will be such that 60 to 100 MP images can be done at 20 to 30 FPS or more such that a mechanical mirror would be more of a limiting factor, but existing DSLRs also already have various live view shooting modes with and without AF before every shot. So again we're back to only size and weight, as you lose the optical view finder and you lose a proper sized grip and body.

See my earlier comment on this topic.


----------



## Chris_BC (Oct 15, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Nonsense. It doesn't break the laws of physics. A high enough shutter speed for conditions (subject motion; hand shake; IS) is a high enough shutter speed. I have no problem getting sharp images hand held even at higher ISOs. In fact, I think what the 5Ds can do hand held at ISO 3200 impresses me even more than what it can do tripod mounted at ISO 100 because I didn't expect the former.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Like for the first paragraph. Tell me about or show us all examples of your claim in the last 2 sentences. Also tell me what you're looking at your images on and what zoom level. I have a 43 inch 4K Philips monitor, and I don't see any problems with my 5DsR images, even after some modest sharpening. 

No I don't pixel peep at 100% to see the quality of my images, as that's about like sampling audio containing 20 KHz tones at 20 KHz, and expecting to hear the 20 KHz tones on playback of your digital recording. There is a reason the audio CD format was developed with 44.1 KHz sampling. That same idea tells you 50% is the maximum size you should view images to assess their quality.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 15, 2018)

That's a moiré

That's-a more


----------



## tron (Oct 15, 2018)

Actually I have to crop at 100% sometimes when some birds do not cooperate (or to cover for my lack of experience as I am sure some EOS R lovers would say / have said).
When you shoot at bright sunlight or even a little less than optimal conditions and you keep ISO reasonably low it seems you can crop at 100% with EOS 5DsR and be satisfied with the results. This makes it a satisfying birding camera for me.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 15, 2018)

tron said:


> Actually I have to crop at 100% sometimes when some birds do not cooperate (or to cover for my lack of experience as I am sure some EOS R lovers would say / have said).
> When you shoot at bright sunlight or even a little less than optimal conditions and you keep ISO reasonably low it seems you can crop at 100% with EOS 5DsR and be satisfied with the results. This makes it a satisfying birding camera for me.


If you had better field-craft, you would hand the camera over to the bird and convince him to do a selfie. No need to crop...


----------



## tron (Oct 15, 2018)

brad-man said:


> If you had better field-craft, you would hand the camera over to the bird and convince him to do a selfie. No need to crop...


----------



## AlanF (Oct 15, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> I assume he is saying the 5DSR is best used on a tripod and with this I would agree.
> For me the 5DSR works best in ideal conditions and low ISO. I don't like it beyond 1600 ISO and try to keep it below that.
> I find the 5D IV a much better all-round camera.
> There is alot of slowness in the 5DSR. The file size slows the camera down.
> The 5D IV Is a much snappier camera.


All cameras work best in ideal conditions and low iso, even the 5DIV. Here are two images I have posted previously that show the 5DSR is a capable camera in low light and high iso. This bell bird (in Tiritiri in New Zealand) was hidden under the green canopy with light filtering through. I took a photo from one side with a 5DIV + 400mm DO II at f/4, 1/200s and iso6400, and my wife with a 5DSR, 100-400mm II, f/5.6, 1/200 and iso6400 from the other side (top image). The 5DSR maxed out at 6400 and I pushed hers through +1.56ev in DxO PL after prime noise reduction, so it was effectively at iso19000 (bottom image). Not much to choose between them. Both were hand held. There is a lot of nonsense spouted about the 5DSR by those who have never used them or don't know how to get the best out of them without torturing yourself with tripods etc. The time I prefer the 5DIV is when I need snappier focussing otherwise I go to the 5DSR.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 15, 2018)

melgross said:


> What? I’ve examined thousands of images from digital sources in my lab over the years, and have never seen that problem.



If you shoot with a camera with AA filter, then the effect is reduced or removed.


----------



## melgross (Oct 15, 2018)

jeanluc said:


> Yes, I think it would. No doubt that ML/RF lenses will be the future.



Exactly. It seems that it really the best of both worlds. The ability to use what may be the best overall line of high quality lenses for DSLRs, and the ability to use what will be one of the best lines of FF mirrorless lenses arriving over the next few years.


----------



## melgross (Oct 15, 2018)

nchoh said:


> If you shoot with a camera with AA filter, then the effect is reduced or removed.



I had a commercial lab. More than a few were in medium format. In fact I used to beta test Leaf backs and software. We also received scanning back files. The only thing an antialiasing filter really does is to help prevent moire.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 15, 2018)

nchoh said:


> "Too sharp" does exist because the pixels are laid out in grid pattern and the pixel density is still not high enough to hide the unnatural pattern.





melgross said:


> I had a commercial lab. More than a few were in medium format. In fact I used to beta test Leaf backs and software. We also received scanning back files. The only thing an antialiasing filter really does is to help prevent moire.



That is why we have moire... the pixels are laid out in a grid pattern and the pixel density is not high enough. And that is what an anti-aliasing filter does, it unsharpens an image. Did you take comparative shots with and without AA filter to compare?


----------



## melgross (Oct 15, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Because I like choice and because I have EF-lenses built and optimised for DSLR use.



So? Companies should end progress because some don’t want to move forwards? Those lenses will work just fine on the mirrorless cameras. That’s the point to the way the new mount and adapters were designed. Those lenses were optimized for any Canon mount that will accept them. They should work just as well on this as on a DSLR.


----------



## melgross (Oct 15, 2018)

nchoh said:


> That is why we have moire... the pixels are laid out in a grid pattern and the pixel density is not high enough. And that is what an anti-aliasing filter does, it unsharpens an image. Did you take comparative shots with and without AA filter to compare?


But that has nothing to do with the way the image looks otherwise. And yes, we did more than a few tests.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 16, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> My preference is: Weak AA > No AA > Strong AA.



Out of curiosity, how did you you reach that conclusion? Are there series of cameras which have weak/strong/no AA filter options?

I know 5Ds and 5DsR, and D800 and D800e have AA/no AA (or AA canceling) options, but I’ve never seen a strong/weak designation, let alone a camera with 3 such configurations. Maybe in the astrophotography market?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2018)

melgross said:


> The only thing an antialiasing filter really does is to help prevent moire.



Compare resolution chart tests between AA and non-AA cameras. With the non-AA sensor line pairs alias before extinction. At times you will run into that effect in the real world.

In fairness when you're talking about 50mp sensors that aliasing may not be visible even at larger print sizes. But on the other hand neither is the sharpness difference.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Out of curiosity, how did you you reach that conclusion? Are there series of cameras which have weak/strong/no AA filter options?
> 
> I know 5Ds and 5DsR, and D800 and D800e have AA/no AA (or AA canceling) options, but I’ve never seen a strong/weak designation, let alone a camera with 3 options.



No one designates their AA filters that way. But it appears that some sensors have stronger AA filters than others.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2018)

I have taken 30,000 bird photos with my 5DSR and only a handful have had some Moire, and not enough to spoil them, and when I say handful I mean less than 10. And, the absence of AA-filter does make a difference when cropping and using only a small section around the bird. Lensrentals measured the MTFs of various lenses with the 5DS and 5DSR and found that the 5DSR had about 10% higher, which equates to about 10% extra in focal length for resolution. I know that is approximately correct from comparing my 5DIV and 5DSR. If they both had a similar AA-filter, the 5DSR would have a factor of 1.3x in resolution. In practice it is 1.4x or slightly better.
That might not mean much to some, but for me and my fellow birders, it means that a 400mm on a 5DSR has the reach of a 560mm on a 5DIV, and the 5DS would have 520mm. Every little bit of reach helps, which is why my 5DSR is my go-to body unless I am doing difficult BIF - the5DSR has very good AF and there is pretty good lack using BBF with thefron button half depressed.


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2018)

melgross said:


> So? Companies should end progress because some don’t want to move forwards? Those lenses will work just fine on the mirrorless cameras. That’s the point to the way the new mount and adapters were designed. Those lenses were optimized for any Canon mount that will accept them. They should work just as well on this as on a DSLR.


So the lack of choice is what *you* label as progress and moving forward?


----------



## melgross (Oct 16, 2018)

tron said:


> So the lack of choice is what *you* label as progress and moving forward?



So are you still buying film cameras? At what point do companies have to keep an older technology around? If people stop buying DSLRs in profitable numbers, do they still have to make them to satisfy the very few, unprofitable sales that may occur?

What do you think?


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2018)

melgross said:


> So are you still buying film cameras? At what point do companies have to keep an older technology around? If people stop buying DSLRs in profitable numbers, do they still have to make them to satisfy the very few, unprofitable sales that may occur?
> 
> What do you think?


I didn't know that you compared the difference between mirrorless and DSLRs with the difference between DSLRs and film cameras. So EOS R is better than 5DIV? I do not think so. Is it better than 1DxII I do not think so either. Hell it's no better than 5DsR and it is equal only to 6D2.

And who are you to judge/guess how profitable will be the sales that will occur? The only way to judge this is to have both cameras... Unless you are afraid that people will prefer the DSLR EF model vs your favorite EOS R...


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2018)

Arguments by analogy are philosophically unsound because situations are not analogous. But we use them all the time because they are so seductive but facile.


----------



## melgross (Oct 16, 2018)

tron said:


> I didn't know that you compared the difference between mirrorless and DSLRs with the difference between DSLRs and film cameras. So EOS R is better than 5DIV? I do not think so. Is it better than 1DxII I do not think so either. Hell it's no better than 5DsR and it is equal only to 6D2.
> 
> And who are you to judge/guess how profitable will be the sales that will occur? The only way to judge this is to have both cameras... Unless you are afraid that people will prefer the DSLR EF model vs your favorite EOS R...



You’re missing the point. You want something that you want. I get that. Is it better, or worse? It doesn’t matter. What matters is what people are buying. If not enough people buy DSLRs for a company to make a profit, they will stop making them. And that’s right and proper. These companies aren’t charities. I’m not saying that they should, or will, discontinue a camera line right now. Unless the sales of a camera is already below profitability, they will likely continue it, at least for a while.

They’re in business to increase sales, if possible, and make a profit. If they can’t do that, eventually they go out of business.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2018)

AlanF said:


> And, the absence of AA-filter does make a difference when cropping and using only a small section around the bird. Lensrentals measured the MTFs of various lenses with the 5DS and 5DSR and found that the 5DSR had about 10% higher, which equates to about 10% extra in focal length for resolution.



Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing. That 10% measured MTF difference equates to a tiny bit of sharpening in camera or in post. It does not mean greater enlargement potential.

When deciding between the two I would open files from both in PS, side-by-side, and try to equalize sharpening. I also printed samples with and without sharpening on the 5Ds file. Here were my observations:

While pixel peeping they were difficult to tell apart without looking at the file info or finding a section of the image with very high contrast detail. With low to medium contrast detail there was typically no difference apparent to the naked eye. (This was at 100% and 200% on a 218ppi 4k monitor.)
USM of 20-30%/1px would make high contrast detail as sharp or sharper on the 5Ds. But if I did that then low contrast detail often became sharper on the 5Ds file.
5Dsr files, when pixel peeped, often show color aliasing and stronger stair stepping effects. As an example, you can find both in the dpreview studio scene in multiple places.
In fairness to the 5Dsr the color aliasing and stair stepping would never show in print. But then again, neither would the sharpness difference. Whether I sharpened the 5Ds file to match the 5Dsr file or not, I could not tell them apart at 24x36". (Epson 3880 and Hot Press Bright paper, one of the highest resolving combos you can find.) I could only find differences while pixel peeping.
Once I realized that the AA filter simply made no difference at normal print and view sizes, and was smaller than any of my other choices (lens; aperture; sharpening in post; paper) in the chain even while pixel peeping, I went for moire resistance.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2018)

melgross said:


> So are you still buying film cameras? At what point do companies have to keep an older technology around? If people stop buying DSLRs in profitable numbers, do they still have to make them to satisfy the very few, unprofitable sales that may occur?
> 
> What do you think?



I think mirrorless fans never bother to lookup sales numbers. DSLRs out sell MILCs by a wide margin globally. In Europe it's near 2:1, and in America it's near 3:1. Japan is the only location where MILCs out sell DSLRs, and the MILCs that are selling are the smallest m43 and APS-C systems. Not FF systems with big pro lenses.

DSLRs aren't going any where for a while.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 17, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing. That 10% measured MTF difference equates to a tiny bit of sharpening in camera or in post. It does not mean greater enlargement potential.
> 
> When deciding between the two I would open files from both in PS, side-by-side, and try to equalize sharpening. I also printed samples with and without sharpening on the 5Ds file. Here were my observations:
> 
> ...



There is crucial difference between sharpness (acutance) and resolution: acutance can be increased by sharpening like USM but resolution cannot be increased. Once it has been lost by an AA-filter, resolution cannot be put back by sharpening. If you have an image whose requirements are not at the limit of resolution, then it won't make much difference whether you have an AA-filter or even use a 24 mpx sensor rather than a 50 mpx. If you are at the edge of losing fine details, then the AA-filter or higher pixel density does make a difference.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2018)

AlanF said:


> There is crucial difference between sharpness (acutance) and resolution: acutance can be increased by sharpening like USM but resolution cannot be increased. Once it has been lost by an AA-filter, resolution cannot be put back by sharpening.



AA filters don't generally impact extinction resolution. They impact sharpness so if you test resolution at a specific contrast level, such as MTF50, you will get a higher number without an AA filter. But if you sharpen the AA filtered image and analyze it you will end up with a higher MTF50 resolution as well.

It's hard to find pairs of cameras to illustrate this because Canon is both the company still using AA filters and the company that tends to have odd MP sizes (i.e. 26 vs. 24). But to give one example, the 24mp 80D and 24mp D7200 both have an extinction resolution of 3,600 lph in IR's test, using RAW+ACR, despite the difference in AA filter and lenses. It would appear that their limit is governed by Nyquist and not by the presence or lack of an AA filter, nor by differences between two decent prime lenses.

Side note: your choice of RAW converter can impact extinction resolution by a noticeable amount. While I haven't tested the 5Ds for this, my old 7D resolved considerably more detail using RAW+ACR than it did using JPEG or RAW+DPP.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 17, 2018)

You can’t compare results between different sensors, such as that on the Nikon and that on the Canon, to draw fine distinctions attributable to one factor. The facts are that reliable measurements as well as basic physics argue against your unfounded assertions that AA-filters do not lower MTF resolution and can be sharpened to remove the filtering loss.


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2018)

melgross said:


> You’re missing the point. You want something that you want. I get that. Is it better, or worse? It doesn’t matter. What matters is what people are buying. If not enough people buy DSLRs for a company to make a profit, they will stop making them. And that’s right and proper. These companies aren’t charities. I’m not saying that they should, or will, discontinue a camera line right now. Unless the sales of a camera is already below profitability, they will likely continue it, at least for a while.
> 
> They’re in business to increase sales, if possible, and make a profit. If they can’t do that, eventually they go out of business.


And how many have preodered EOS R? How do you know Canon sales? How can you predict that people will prefer the mediocre (for now) EOS R vs. 5D4, 5DsR and 1DxII cameras or their replacements? They are better than EOS R. Until we see a serious second (or third?) iteration where we will have to reconsider - maybe depending on the sensor.


----------



## melgross (Oct 17, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> I think mirrorless fans never bother to lookup sales numbers. DSLRs out sell MILCs by a wide margin globally. In Europe it's near 2:1, and in America it's near 3:1. Japan is the only location where MILCs out sell DSLRs, and the MILCs that are selling are the smallest m43 and APS-C systems. Not FF systems with big pro lenses.
> 
> DSLRs aren't going any where for a while.



I agree. But in talking about the future, we have to acknowledge that DSLRs are older technology. Replacing the optical system with electronics is inevitable. It will also be cheaper. Maybe not now, but certainly in a few years. It will also be better.Some people want to believe that DSLRs should always remain, and that’s just not going to happen.


----------



## melgross (Oct 17, 2018)

tron said:


> And how many have preodered EOS R? How do you know Canon sales? How can you predict that people will prefer the mediocre (for now) EOS R vs. 5D4, 5DsR and 1DxII cameras or their replacements? They are better than EOS R. Until we see a serious second (or third?) iteration where we will have to reconsider - maybe depending on the sensor.



You’re making the same mistake that others who can’t seem to live with the idea that what they want will be replaced with something else. It’s the: “If it was good enough for my father, it’s good enough for me” syndrome.

Don’t look at this one, first, model and decide that Canon will never do better. What kind of thinking is that? Who is talking about this camera replacing those? I’m not. But their next model might replace one or more of them. The one after that may replace even more models. Don’t judge things by the very first offering. This could replace the 6D though.


----------



## BillB (Oct 17, 2018)

melgross said:


> You’re making the same mistake that others who can’t seem to live with the idea that what they want will be replaced with something else. It’s the: “If it was good enough for my father, it’s good enough for me” syndrome.
> 
> Don’t look at this one, first, model and decide that Canon will never do better. What kind of thinking is that? Who is talking about this camera replacing those? I’m not. But their next model might replace one or more of them. The one after that may replace even more models. Don’t judge things by the very first offering. This could replace the 6D though.


Or, maybe it will find a niche between the 6DII and the 5DIV, as its pricing suggests.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 18, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> No one designates their AA filters that way. But it appears that some sensors have stronger AA filters than others.



I’m just wondering what basis you used to establish a preference for strength.

Is it basically “I like the look of this camera I think has a moderate filter more than that one which I know has no filter/canceling and that one which I think has a stronger one?”

I can say I generally prefer 5DSR images to 5DS images, but wouldn’t be able to posit that something in between would best them both.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 19, 2018)

melgross said:


> I agree. But in talking about the future, we have to acknowledge that DSLRs are older technology. Replacing the optical system with electronics is inevitable. It will also be cheaper. Maybe not now, but certainly in a few years. It will also be better. Some people want to believe that DSLRs should always remain, and that’s just not going to happen.



The market will decide what happens. That said, I agree that over a long enough time scale EVFs will likely replace OVFs. I just get annoyed at the gleeful proclamations that "the DSLR is dead!" and baseless product line predictions based on same.

And I hope that the SLR form factor remains because holding big glass with most mirrorless bodies is a literal pain.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 19, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Yes I can. Absent an AA filter resolved detail is going to be governed by Nyquist given the prime lenses and apertures used. If the AA filtered sensor hits as close to its Nyquist limit as the unfiltered sensor then it's safe to say that AA filters do not generally impact extinction resolution.
> Add to this that I have yet to see an image where the 5DsR resolved more detail than the 5Ds, and I looked for them. I downloaded, I pixel peeped, I printed, I studied...all things I'm guessing you did not do.
> I would love to through IR's resolution tests at you but both 5Ds cameras out resolve the IR target.
> You have cited neither reliable measurements nor any relevant laws of physics. Don't claim they support you unless and until you do.



First of all, I did cite reliable evidence - from lensrentals: here is the link to measuring the increased resolution of the 5DSR over the 5DS - https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/ and there is more to come.

Secondly, you claimed that there are no other pairs of cameras with and with and without AA-filters. Well, I am afraid there are gaps in your knowledge, because there are well-documented examples that provide more evidence. First, there is the Nikon D800, which was followed by the D800E, which is the same camera minus the AA-filter. There are several reports of the increased resolution of the D800E. Here are 3.
_Nikon D800 review updated with D800E side-by-side testing_
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1879419250/nikon-d800e-detail-added-to-nikon-d800-review
_Discerning the Differences between the Nikon D800 and D800E_
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...ning-differences-between-nikon-d800-and-d800e
_Lensrentals_
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-d800e
In addition, the Sony DSC-RX1R II has a switchable off, standard and high AA-filter (LPF)
https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx1rm2
AP has measured the MTFs with the LPF off, compromise medium and off:
"_5,600l/ph is gained at ISO 100 when the LPF is turned off, and although it has obvious signs of colour moiré and grid-like aliasing, it boasts extremely good resolution. In the LPF standard mode, and at the same ISO, a score of 5,200l/ph is achieved; LPF high gives a 4,800l/ph score_."
The Sony has a very high resolution lens.
You quote the Nyquist limit. But, that is not the only factor. The difficulty in resolving two overlapping lines or points caused by blurring is the same in principle as resolving two lines that are blurred by other physical factors such as those behind the Rayleigh Criterion - once you have blurred the detail, simple sharpening doesn't help. USM etc can sharpen edges, but not restore blurred resolution. I hope that those links I have given you convince you that you I did have supportive evidence.
It would be good if Canon had a switchable on/off AA-filter on the 5DSRII.


----------



## I Simonius (Oct 20, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I don’t believe the average 5DS user would be all that bothered by adapting EF lenses,




I don't know whether I'm the average 5DS (R) user or not but I would definitely not buy or use any adapted lenses. So I do not concur with your comment as I would most decidedly be bothered.

Nor, to my mind, is there any advantage to a mirrorless version of the 5DS; the opposite in fact.

However if I am the average 5DS user then Canon has a problem, as for me, this camera only has one possible area of improvement, that being greater DR.

I have yet to see any EVF that gives me anything like the same experience as looking through the lovely OVF of the 5DS. This is a very important part of the photography experience for me.

Everything else about the 5DS is perfect (any more pixels and f-stop choice decreases and DOF suffers due to circle of confusion issues, assuming you want the absolute maximum out of this camera) I simply cannot fault it.

I'm a stills photographer with little or no interest in video so I assume the idea that some have that the 5DS is outdated comes from Videographers; or those that need to shoot hairs on clangers' knees on the moon at f1.2.

Increased dynamic range is the only reason I'd buy another 5DS. I wouldn't buy any other FF DSLR because for my purposes Canon has made the perfect camera in the 5DS (R)

All the talk of one camera outperforming another is irrelevant to me now I have the 5DS (R) simply because for my purposes I finally have the tool that does exactly what I want and need (barring greater DR as I frequently shoot very high contrast scenes)

I realise I must be failing in my duty as a good consumer in not wanting perpetually to improve my gear; maybe I'm not the average 5DS (R) user after all


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 20, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Secondly, you claimed that there are no other pairs of cameras with and with and without AA-filters. Well, I am afraid there are gaps in your knowledge, because there are well-documented examples that provide more evidence. First, there is the Nikon D800, which was followed by the D800E, which is the same camera minus the AA-filter. There are several reports of the increased resolution of the D800E. Here are 3.
> _Nikon D800 review updated with D800E side-by-side testing_
> https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1879419250/nikon-d800e-detail-added-to-nikon-d800-review
> _Discerning the Differences between the Nikon D800 and D800E_
> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...ning-differences-between-nikon-d800-and-d800e



Typical dpreview - begging a difference. Fancy showing the 800 and 800E with the same amount of sharpening, and 100% of .6 pixel is quite significant. Of course the 800E is going to look shaper - it looks brittle in fact.

The way to test the two side by side is for the 800E to have no sharpening, then subtle sharpening on the 800 to equal the perceived sharpness and contrast of the 800E. Then view the difference.

Incidentally that 100% crop shows what minutiae we are discussing anyway: look how small the detail is in the full image.

I wholeheartedly agree with dtaylor's comments. However before I bought the 5DS I borrowed one and rented a 5DSR, and I tested them together. With appropriate subtle sharpening on the 5DS ( about 100% of 0.3 pixel) there is naff all difference, even at 200%. I could have a good laugh on here by putting up the images that I took and see how no one would be able to tell which was from which camera, despite all this nonsense about 10% more resolution. What might give the game away however is the false colour showing in the 5DSR files, just like in the dpreview samples.

I can understand those who want to crop very tightly and base their (cropped) picture on very fine detail liking the non AA filtered camera: just don't wish non AA filtered cameras onto those of us who prefer them with, and harping on about how much detail we are missing.

Given the limitations of a bayer array sensor, technically these should have an appropriate AA filter over them. I hope that when the next generation of 5DS / SR cameras come out Canon will, unlike Nikon, continue to give us the option.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 20, 2018)

The best option is that provided by Sony: to be able to toggle from no AA-filter, to weak AA-filter to strong. In that way, those who can see the benefits of lacking an AA-filter will be happy as will fashion photographers who need to avoid Moire like the plague. It will also take care of those akin to climate warming deniers and flat earthists who deny measurements and scientific evidence and choose to follow their gut instincts, come what may.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 20, 2018)

AlanF said:


> The best option is that provided by Sony: to be able to toggle from no AA-filter, to weak AA-filter to strong.



Which Sony?

Edit never mind I found it above. I wonder if canceling a filter is really the same thing as having no filter. Surely there is some loss involved.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 20, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Which Sony?
> 
> Edit never mind I found it above. I wonder if canceling a filter is really the same thing as having no filter. Surely there is some loss involved.


https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx1rm2
Whatever the losses, if any, not activating the AA-filter increases resolution by 16.7% These MTF measurements on the same same camera with the filter either on or off are the best direct demonstration of the effects of the filter on resolution - it is absolutely indisputable that the filter lowers resolution.
I doubt if cancelling the filters results in any significant loss relative to the filter not being there at all, just second-order effects. It's a neat idea giving you the choice of an AA-filter and I really hope Canon adopts it.


----------



## RGF (Oct 20, 2018)

Interesting that Canon did not take this opportunity to increase (perhaps only slightly) the size of the sensor. Not going to MF, but perhaps by 10 to 25%. That would help with S/N though old EF lens would be limited to 36 - equivalent area on the sensor.


----------



## tmc784 (Oct 20, 2018)

5DS-R without lens adapter for EF lens


----------



## melgross (Oct 21, 2018)

BillB said:


> Or, maybe it will find a niche between the 6DII and the 5DIV, as its pricing suggests.



That’s possible too.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 21, 2018)

AlanF said:


> https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx1rm2
> Whatever the losses, if any, not activating the AA-filter increases resolution by 16.7% These MTF measurements on the same same camera with the filter either on or off are the best direct demonstration of the effects of the filter on resolution - it is absolutely indisputable that the filter lowers resolution.
> I doubt if cancelling the filters results in any significant loss relative to the filter not being there at all, just second-order effects. It's a neat idea giving you the choice of an AA-filter and I really hope Canon adopts it.



Well another piece of irrefutable evidence that you've provided - Sony believes that even a 42 mp sensor requires an AA filter option


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Well another piece of irrefutable evidence that you've provided - Sony believes that even a 42 mp sensor requires an AA filter option


I see your emoji. But, the irrefutable evidence is that you have a choice between highest resolution with the possibility of more aliasing artefacts and lower resolution with lower probability of aliasing artefacts. The higher the resolution sensors, the more the Moire is pushed away. 50 mpx sensors are far less susceptible to Moire than 24 mpx.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 22, 2018)

AlanF said:


> First of all, I did cite reliable evidence - from lensrentals:



Lens Rentals was not testing extinction resolution. Do you understand the difference between testing at a particular contrast level (i.e. MTF50) and testing for extinction resolution?



> Secondly, you claimed that there are no other pairs of cameras with and with and without AA-filters.



No, I said it's hard to compare a lot of Canon cameras with non-AA filter cameras from other manufacturers because Canon often has 'odd' MP sizes.



> Well, I am afraid there are gaps in your knowledge, because there are well-documented examples that provide more evidence. First, there is the Nikon D800, which was followed by the D800E, which is the same camera minus the AA-filter. There are several reports of the increased resolution of the D800E. Here are 3.



Let's talk about those three articles...

The dpreview article did not claim higher extinction resolution on the D800E. They couldn't because they use the same chart as Imaging Resource and the D800/D800E both out resolve the chart in terms of extinction resolution.

The bhphoto article did not talk about extinction resolution at all and had no testing of any kind, resolution or otherwise. Why would you cite it?

The LensRentals.com link consisted of a comment from Roger which almost certainly was in reference to MTF50 resolution based off their lens tests. No tests, no discussion of extinction resolution...why would you cite it?



> In addition, the Sony DSC-RX1R II has a switchable off, standard and high AA-filter (LPF)
> https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx1rm2
> AP has measured the MTFs with the LPF off, compromise medium and off:
> "_5,600l/ph is gained at ISO 100 when the LPF is turned off, and although it has obvious signs of colour moiré and grid-like aliasing, it boasts extremely good resolution. In the LPF standard mode, and at the same ISO, a score of 5,200l/ph is achieved; LPF high gives a 4,800l/ph score_."



That's interesting and the *only relevant piece of information you've cited.* But it's also a one-off camera with a unique LPF design. That their LPF impacts extinction resolution does not mean regular LPFs will do the same.



> The difficulty in resolving two overlapping lines or points caused by blurring is the same in principle as resolving two lines that are blurred by other physical factors such as those behind the Rayleigh Criterion - once you have blurred the detail, simple sharpening doesn't help.



That depends entirely on the amount of blur.



> USM etc can sharpen edges, but not restore blurred resolution.



Resolved detail that is slightly blurred is still resolved detail. And if it's resolved but blurred then we're discussing sharpness, not resolution.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2018)

dtaylor, if you want to claim that controlled measurements are irrelevant compared with your eyeballing and scientific logic, then so be it - it won't affect any of my decisions. Talking of Lensrentals, are you the Daniel Taylor who is getting attacked on https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/10/teardown-of-the-canon-eos-r-mirrorless-camera/ for claiming his eyeballs are better than eyeAF etc and what he doesn't use others don't need?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 24, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> No, I said it's hard to compare a lot of Canon cameras with non-AA filter cameras from other manufacturers because Canon often has 'odd' MP sizes.



It’s more than hard; it’s maybe impossible . To really make a determination, you need all else equal. Not just the same sensor; you need the same downstream electronics running the same code (to insure is no cooking of the file, or if there is cooking that is the consistent), same set up, same lighting, same charts, same converter, etc. Crossing brands, all bets are off.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 24, 2018)

AlanF said:


> dtaylor, if you want to claim that controlled measurements are irrelevant compared with your eyeballing and scientific logic, then so be it - it won't affect any of my decisions. Talking of Lensrentals, are you the Daniel Taylor who is getting attacked on https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/10/teardown-of-the-canon-eos-r-mirrorless-camera/ for claiming his eyeballs are better than eyeAF etc and what he doesn't use others don't need?


No need to make it personal. Maybe he is better than eyeAF (which while I've find its good isn't necessarily earth shattering - its certainly far less deliberate than a good photographer). I can see eyeAF is useful but I think it makes for poorer photographs as the photographer is less in control of what is being photographed.
DTaylor has proven than in any arguement about cameras two opposing opinions can dig up plenty of website information that supports their claims.
In the end its the photographers personal experience that matters.
You've written an encyclopedia at this start on the greatness of the 5DSR. Overall I find the 5DIV a far superior all round camera and that's my experience taking hundreds of thousands of photographs with both camera often side by side. It's not that the 5DSR is bad. You completely disagree which is fine.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 25, 2018)

How you rate a camera as all round depends on how you weight the individual features in your scores - a bit like DPR giving an overall score for a camera or DxOmark for a lens - which is bound to provoke both discussion and indignation! What matters to you are your the features that you value and you use the most, and those will determine the all round value to you. I also routinely use both the 5DIV and 5DSR and choose which one depending on the circumstances: for higher resolution, the 5DSR is my go-to body; for snappy AF, especially, BIF, I prefer the 5DIV. On our safari beginning next week, I'll be using the 5DIV with the 400mm DO II plus extenders and my wife the 5DSR with the 100-400mm II. In those circumstances, she will have the more useful all round combination being able to have good reach and the ability for close ups without changing extenders but I'll get the better long distance performance with the 2xTC. (Mind you, I will miss having the the 5DSR + 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC, but we have to make sacrifices...)

Although it might be heresy to say so in this forum, the Nikon D850 beats both as an all round stills camera because it combines a high mpx sensor without an AA-filter, very fast AF and reasonable fps. But, I am confident that Canon will match it or overtake it.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 25, 2018)

AlanF said:


> How you rate a camera as all round depends on how you weight the individual features in your scores - a bit like DPR giving an overall score for a camera or DxOmark for a lens - which is bound to provoke both discussion and indignation! What matters to you are your the features that you value and you use the most, and those will determine the all round value to you. I also routinely use both the 5DIV and 5DSR and choose which one depending on the circumstances: for higher resolution, the 5DSR is my go-to body; for snappy AF, especially, BIF, I prefer the 5DIV. On our safari beginning next week, I'll be using the 5DIV with the 400mm DO II plus extenders and my wife the 5DSR with the 100-400mm II. In those circumstances, she will have the more useful all round combination being able to have good reach and the ability for close ups without changing extenders but I'll get the better long distance performance with the 2xTC. (Mind you, I will miss having the the 5DSR + 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC, but we have to make sacrifices...)
> 
> Although it might be heresy to say so in this forum, the Nikon D850 beats both as an all round stills camera because it combines a high mpx sensor without an AA-filter, very fast AF and reasonable fps. But, I am confident that Canon will match it or overtake it.


Enjoy your Safari. I’m not long back from Kenya and it was a great experience. I was using mainly a 600 F4 II + 5DIV which was great if a little awkward (length wise and it’s admittedly heavy) and. 100-400 II which was fine but noticeably inferior (it was also stuck with the 5DSR ) but more flexible.
Tough trip all round but very rewarding. You could do a safari there ignore the animals and focus only on birds and be kept busy all day. An amazing cultural experience. I was in Tanzania before close to 20 years ago. It really emphasized to me how good Cameras and lens have got. Differences between 5DSR and 5DIV are nothing in the bigger picture


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 25, 2018)

AlanF said:


> How you rate a camera as all round depends on how you weight the individual features in your scores - a bit like DPR giving an overall score for a camera or DxOmark for a lens -....



Exactly. A camera rating site could, perhaps come up with a list of attributes that a viewer can check off or put a priority on, then show the cameras that score highest in those categories. That would be unlikely, because ratings for things like autofocus are really tough to pin down, many factors affect it, light intensity, light color, contrast, even air temperature, so any score is going to be biased toward testing conditions and not towards your specific use.

If you don't check video or 4K video, then the video rating would not be factored into your results. If you want 40+ mp, than that would be factored in, it might be another way of helping a buyer find what works best for their usage. I get the feeling that many people buy capabilities they don't use, and such a person is sitting right here!

I do use corded tethering, and occasionally, wireless tethering, so performance in those areas might be a higher priority for me than for most. Generally, Canon cameras score very high in tethering, so that's one of my likes. I also like the touch screen, because with my loss of feeling in my fingers, I find it much faster and easier most of the time. I have a big problem feeling the shutter button, and have glued a raised button on my cameras to help me feel it. I'm not aware of any camera that would be outstanding for me as far as feeling the shutter button. Ergonomics would be another impossible to pin down rating.

I think that different cultures have different expectations as well, perhaps the terminology on the screen might be better or worse, depending on translation?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 26, 2018)

I thought I replied to this already but I don't see the post?



AlanF said:


> dtaylor, if you want to claim that controlled measurements are irrelevant compared with your eyeballing and scientific logic, then so be it -



You haven't cited any relevant controlled tests. Opinion pieces with no testing are not controlled tests. And tests for MTF50 resolution tell you nothing about extinction resolution.



> Talking of Lensrentals, are you the Daniel Taylor who is getting attacked on https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/10/teardown-of-the-canon-eos-r-mirrorless-camera/ for claiming his eyeballs are better than eyeAF etc and what he doesn't use others don't need?



Do I have a stalker now?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 26, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> It’s more than hard; it’s maybe impossible . To really make a determination, you need all else equal. Not just the same sensor; you need the same downstream electronics running the same code (to insure is no cooking of the file, or if there is cooking that is the consistent), same set up, same lighting, same charts, same converter, etc. Crossing brands, all bets are off.



The fact that two separate sensors with the same MP but otherwise different AA configurations, downstream electronics, lenses, etc yielded identical extinction resolutions tells us that Nyquist is the limiting factor. There should have been a difference yet there wasn't meaning one factor sits above the others.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 26, 2018)

Lensrentals measurements of MTFs on the 5DSR, with the AA-filter neutralised, and 5DS, with the AAfilter on, under the same conditions https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/; and AP's measurements on the Sony RX1R II with the AA-filter off, standard and high under the same conditions are controlled measurements https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compacts/sony-rx1r-ii-review/7


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 26, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Lensrentals measurements of MTFs on the 5DSR, with the AA-filter neutralised, and 5DS, with the AAfilter on, under the same conditions



As stated in the article that was not a test for extinction resolution, but for resolution at MTF50. I've already pointed this out. Did you not read the article? Do you not understand the difference between MTF50 and extinction resolution?

BTW, you can sharpen any image and increase the measured MTF50 point.



> and AP's measurements on the Sony RX1R II with the AA-filter off, standard and high under the same conditions are controlled measurements



That's a very different LPF design. I think it's an interesting result, but also trumped by the fact that two 24mp sensors with/without a traditional LPF show the same extinction resolution.

We can go round and round forever. If the 5DsR (or D800E) truly showed higher _resolution_ (traditionally MTF10), as opposed to merely higher sharpness (MTF50), it would be easy to spot in some of the many test images at DPReview and Imaging Resource. But it's just not there. The images are very difficult to discern even at 100% and 200%, and impossible after a light sharpening pass on the AA filtered versions.

An AA filter means resistance to aliasing, moire, and higher sharpening settings when you do sharpen. No AA filter means some aliasing, occasional moire, and lower sharpening settings. In the case of high resolution sensors like the D800/D800E and 5Ds/5DsR you're never going to see aliasing or sharpness differences in print even if you don't correct them. The only thing that will stand out in print if you don't clean it up is moire.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 26, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> The fact that two separate sensors with the same MP but otherwise different AA configurations, downstream electronics, lenses, etc yielded identical extinction resolutions tells us that Nyquist is the limiting factor. There should have been a difference yet there wasn't meaning one factor sits above the others.


Do you have a report of the testing you are referring to? I’m curious about the methodology and am happy to learn something. If there is a link above I apologize; I can’t readily find it.

My off-the-cuff guess is that they shoot increasingly close together line pairs, and determine at which point they can no longer register a distinction. Maybe it’s a better methodology, because there are holes in that one. I just find it very interesting that a filter which exists specifically to introduce blur would not pay a resolution penalty for that blur.

Edit: typo correction


----------



## AlanF (Oct 26, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> ....An AA filter means resistance to aliasing, moire, and higher sharpening settings when you do sharpen. No AA filter means some aliasing, occasional moire, and lower sharpening settings. In the case of high resolution sensors like the D800/D800E and 5Ds/5DsR you're never going to see aliasing or sharpness differences in print even if you don't correct them. The only thing that will stand out in print if you don't clean it up is moire.



If the AA-filter has all the advantages of less aliasing and Moire, and there is no loss of resolution because increased sharpening regains the the resolution, why do just about all the camera manufacturers for their high mpixel sensors either remove the AA-filter or give you a choice of not using it? It would be a no-brainer not to remove the AA- or low-pass filter if you are right. 
But:
Canon claims the removal (cancelling) increases resolution:
https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/cameras/eos_5ds_r.do
"_the inclusion of a low-pass cancellation filter that allows for maximum resolution from the sensor._"
As does Sony:
https://www.sony.com/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx1rm2
Low pass filter “_Off (to prioritize image resolution)_”
Nikon
https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000006377&configured=1&lang=en_GB
“_remove the OLPF with high resolution cameras to take advantage of the increased image sharpness_.”

So, are these manufacturers all lying to us?


----------



## peterzuehlke (Oct 27, 2018)

scyrene said:


> They are? Wow, I had no idea!


the thought that the 5Ds and sr are outdated probably has to do with their dynamic range, which so many people have been focussing on lately.


----------



## Joules (Oct 27, 2018)

peterzuehlke said:


> the thought that the 5Ds and sr are outdated probably has to do with their dynamic range, which so many people have been focussing on lately.


The 5Ds Bodies are missing some of Canon's newer tech like on-chip ADC, Touchscreen, 4k or Dual Pixel Autofocus right? I don't feel like you can blame people for thinking the Bodies are getting old when all these little differences in comparison to the more recent releases are adding up to give just that impression.


----------



## sfeinsmith (Oct 28, 2018)

Tired about a lot of misleading reports about Canon EOS 5Ds R camera body. I understood Canon is going to have both EOS 5Ds and 5Ds R into a single camera because it was not necessary to have the 5Ds with the low-pass filter with high MP sensor. It is NOT obsolete and had no problem with the filter front of the sensor. It is one of the BEST camera designed. I realized several people wrote the articles did not even own that camera. They provided a FAKE description on the websites.

Canon EOS 5Ds R Mark II is in the test stage with new higher MP sensor with improving features. We have to wait until 2019 to see more EF lenses and new EF based camera bodies included EOS 5Ds R Mark II as a second generation camera. According to the rumor, the second generation may have 60.1 MP or higher for a new full-frame sensor. I think I saw other website showed Canon designed 100 plus MP in 35mm sized sensor. 

A higher MP sensor requires a lot of time for data transferring. 

Canon needs faster chips to manage higher data speed before the photographer can make the next shot.

Canon developed four different lenses system. The full-frame EF lenses, APS-C based EF-S lenses and EF-M and now RF. 

I did not understand why Canon choose "R" and "RF" labels for a new system because the "R" suffix already used in 1960 Canon system. Canon tends confusion with their history because I was there when I got my first camera, Canonflex RM with R lenses. The R lenses became FL then FD and FDn. The FD and FDn considered being the world best lenses with built like a tank because it made in metal. The EF lenses developed based from FD/FDn lens construction plus autofocus and replaced metal with plastic in 1989. The L series EF came with metal and plastic parts combined. Canon modified the lens from 42mm flange to focal length to 44mm for EF lens system.

The bottom line, Canon should not use R and RF labels at all. Secondly, too many different lens models. Hopefully, they will correct by remove "R" out and replace with a new suffix for the mirrorless system.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 28, 2018)

Joules said:


> The 5Ds Bodies are missing some of Canon's newer tech like on-chip ADC, Touchscreen, 4k or Dual Pixel Autofocus right? I don't feel like you can blame people for thinking the Bodies are getting old when all these little differences in comparison to the more recent releases are adding up to give just that impression.



Getting old and being outdated are two different things. Sure they lack some of the newer features, but they are still capable modern cameras. The 5Ds(R) is only 3.5 years old!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 28, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> Hopefully, they will correct by remove "R" out and replace with a new suffix for the mirrorless system.



Rebranding after production of at least one camera and 3 lenses would to me seem to introduce far more confusion.


----------

