# Canon EOS 5DS Production Models Out in the Wild



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 5, 2015)

```
PhotographyBLOG received their production Canon EOS 5DS camera body a couple of weeks before the rest of us will get a chance to try one out.</p>
<p>They’ve posted 91 jpgs and 20 RAW files ahead of their full review of Canon’s high resolution DSLR.</p>
<blockquote><p>A <a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/canon_eos_5ds_photos/" target="_blank">gallery of sample images</a> taken with the Canon EOS 5DS DSLR camera and the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM and EF 50mm f/1.8</p></blockquote>
<p>Also worth noting, their camera is running firmware 1.01.</p>
<p>Canon EOS 5DS R $3899: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/results/canonnewfeb" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119027-REG/canon_0582c002_eos_5ds_r_dslr.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00T3ERPT8/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00T3ERPT8&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=X7P2IPISEXTZFLQ7" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | Canon EOS 5DS $3699: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/results/canonnewfeb" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119026-REG/canon_0581c002_eos_5ds_dslr_camera.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00T3ERPT8/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00T3ERPT8&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=C3LAZKJCU4IRBJUF" target="_blank">Amazon</a></p>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## CVP (Jun 5, 2015)

I'm starting to believe in pixel overkill. IQ looks nice, but unless I wanted to crop out multiple shots from one exposure, I don't know what I really get as opposed to the mkIII. Take the extra $1200 and buy the mkIII and the 16-35 f4 IS.


----------



## sanj (Jun 5, 2015)

Does not create ANY interest in me.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jun 5, 2015)

Those are some massive RAW files! 

The shadow noise when pushed 5 stops and viewed at 100% isn't bad. Much more useable than many other Canon cameras. Considering the MP count, the images would look decent when downsampled or viewed at a regular viewing distance. 

I am also really impressed with the color quality of some of those images. I would use a 5Ds for that alone, even if I don't care about 50MP.


----------



## SlydeR (Jun 5, 2015)

Not sure if my eyes are giving trouble today, but I took a close look at a few of the more detailed images (jpg) and they looked a bit soft....nothing looked tack sharp??? Wondering if all were taken hand held??


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 5, 2015)

I ended up cancelling my pre-order. The 5DIII and 1D X do everything I need and I know all too well how quickly body prices fall if you wait a few months. I'm also anxious to avoid possible buyer's remorse when the 5DIV and 1DXII are announced.


----------



## kenny (Jun 5, 2015)

The 50 f/1.8 and a 24-70 f/4? Not exactly the glass I'd pair with it to show off...


----------



## dolina (Jun 5, 2015)

Seeming the production model's out it would be nice of Canon would start selling them immediately upon receiving stocks.


----------



## AA_photo (Jun 6, 2015)

I was thinking of selling my mk3 and ordering the 5ds but lately everything that I've been seeing online is making me want to keep my mk3! Especially after seeing the samples up against the phase one, it still can't compare to a medium format camera, even though some articles out there seem to claim otherwise. 

I'm looking forward to seeing some more samples soon.

I can't imagine Canon being able to cram more pixels into the FF sensor and see better results. Is there any chance that some day we'll see a medium format option being released?


----------



## captainkanji (Jun 6, 2015)

Not exactly the types of photos I want to see from the camera. I wouldn't mind seeing how it performs at 12,800 

I'm sure it will be a fine camera, just not the one for me.


----------



## erjlphoto (Jun 6, 2015)

I thought the ISO 6400 images inside the tunnel were quite impressive both photographically and iIQ wise. Didn't like most of the other photos content wise.


----------



## seanature (Jun 6, 2015)

I got to play with actual production versions of both new models at an unveiling tonight. The 5Ds was running 1.0.1 firmware; the 5Ds R was running 1.0.1r.

They had a number of prints including a pair of 13x19 prints of a studio scene. One was shot with the new 5Ds and the other with the 5D Mark III. There was a noticeable difference in quality, even standing back a few feet. The 5Ds was visibly sharper and the texture in the image looked more lifelike, for lack of a better description. I was a bit surprised there was that much of a difference in a print of that size.

I asked the rep about the practical difference between the two 5Ds models. He claims that even when Canon tries to produce moire with a 5Ds R that they're unsuccessful. In his experience, there really isn't much of an image quality difference between the two models. If you do fashion, wedding or product photography, you still probably want to get the one with the AA filter activated, but he claims Canon's experience is that moire isn't a serious issue even with the 5Ds R - even when they are trying to produce it.

The camera has a redesigned mirror mechanism and has special dampening around the tripod socket to reduce vibrations that could impair image quality. You can hear the difference in the shutter. I ran off some bursts and the 5Ds in normal mode is quieter than my 1Ds in silent mode. People with the 5D III said it was even quieter than that camera's silent mode.

On the subject of burst mode, that may prove to be one of the areas of disappointment. They couldn't answer questions about the buffer size, but George Lepp, who also presented, said he had to shoot JPEGs when he was shooting bursts with his. 

Other thoughts from Lepp: He says ISO 1600 delivers great quality files for him. He doesn't go beyond that. The Canon reps said repeatedly that this is a camera that is designed for tripods. Lepp said that the old reciprocity rule (i.e. You can handhold a 200mm at 1/200 or faster) may need to be revised - even with image stabilization. He was shooting a short telephoto lens in a setting where he only needed the IS to provide what we think of as one stop of stabilization and still couldn't get predictably sharp results.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 6, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I ended up cancelling my pre-order. The 5DIII and 1D X do everything I need and I know all too well how quickly body prices fall if you wait a few months. I'm also anxious to avoid possible buyer's remorse when the 5DIV and 1DXII are announced.



Quite different form here then, after three years the 1dx costs the same as I bought it for a couple of m the after release. I like that kind of pricing, makes it no point to wait


----------



## memoriaphoto (Jun 6, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Quite different form here then, after three years the 1dx costs the same as I bought it for a couple of m the after release. I like that kind of pricing, makes it no point to wait



I think you're right. Canon seems to drop the initial price in their "mainstream" line and big sellers. Having that said, there might be some small adjustments but nothing worth waiting for. If you want the camera now that is...

MAYBE if it turns out not to sell as good as planned and/or Mark 4 will steal buyers. But that doesn't sound likely. Two different targets.


----------



## dolina (Jun 6, 2015)

Price drops indicates when a replacement model's in the horizon.

Say the 6D for example. CR reports a grey import being sold at $1,099 vs the standard price of $1,399.

I would be unsurprised if the 6D replacement will be announced by September and production units for sale by December.

A 1DX replacement will be out before August 2016 for the Summer Olympics.


----------



## lichtmalen (Jun 6, 2015)

Are we _seriously_ not talking about the fact that they get the newest and lens-wise most demanding body before everyone else and then put Canon's cheapest prime and a mid-to-upper-class zoom on that and not something like a Sigma Art or a 24-70 II / 70-200 II? Most of the pics I've seen of the 5Ds so far are technically taken _so wrong_ that they are more of a bad advertising than actually helpful. I've seen out-of-focus and handheld-blurred shots of some people doing parcour where the focus is miles away from the subject or the exposure time is way too long for people in motion. I've seen pics with a Sigma 50 Art so massively underexposed and then pushed and also sharpened that all you see in 100% is noise and artifacts. Now we have pics with lenses that can't deliver what the body demands. Seriously, I can't wait to get mine and do a real-world tripod comparison between 5Ds and 5D Mark III with the stuff I've got. I have the slight feeling that is going to turn out _way_ better.


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 7, 2015)

@lightmalen couldn't agree more- I would love to see some *meaningful* tests and comparisons if ever you feel like publishing them!


----------



## Bghead8che (Jun 7, 2015)

seanature said:


> Other thoughts from Lepp: He says ISO 1600 delivers great quality files for him. He doesn't go beyond that. The Canon reps said repeatedly that this is a camera that is designed for tripods. Lepp said that the old reciprocity rule (i.e. You can handhold a 200mm at 1/200 or faster) may need to be revised - even with image stabilization. He was shooting a short telephoto lens in a setting where he only needed the IS to provide what we think of as one stop of stabilization and still couldn't get predictably sharp results.



I'm sorry but this is some serious misinformation and is the same hyperbole surrounding the D800 and how you would "HAVE" to use a tripod, double your shutter speed, and take 10 handheld shots for 1 one you planned on keeping. The whole thing has been repeatedly debunked by actual owners. 

If you can take a picture with a 5D Mark III (or I, or II) then you will get the exact same number of out of focus shots with the 5DSR. While there are characteristics of 5DSR that will make it more suitable for tripod, studio, and landscape photography the fact that it is 50mp has nothing do with it. 

Claiming that Canon is now revising the shutter rule based on 50mp count is rubbish. That would be like Nikon saying that with the new D820 at 50mp you can expect 15% more OOF shots and you must use a tripod. Reminds of people that keep saying the that while the 5D Mark III was a good street camera you should not even think of using the 5DSR. Why's that? Because it has 50MP of course! There's a street photography limit of 24MP and then it's shake, shake, shake (or should I say blur, blur, blur?). :

By the time we are 100MP we will be required to carry around concrete blocks to even consider taking a hand-held shot. 

-Brian


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 7, 2015)

Bghead8che said:


> seanature said:
> 
> 
> > Other thoughts from Lepp: He says ISO 1600 delivers great quality files for him. He doesn't go beyond that. The Canon reps said repeatedly that this is a camera that is designed for tripods. Lepp said that the old reciprocity rule (i.e. You can handhold a 200mm at 1/200 or faster) may need to be revised - even with image stabilization. He was shooting a short telephoto lens in a setting where he only needed the IS to provide what we think of as one stop of stabilization and still couldn't get predictably sharp results.
> ...



For pixel level sharpness more pixels demand more stability.

Pixel level sharpness with more pixels implies greater magnification/output size.

For same size output stability is pixel density agnostic, a 5D MkIII and 5DSR will display the same camera shake at the same sized output.

You are right for a same sized output scenario, you are wrong for a pixel level test.


----------



## eyeland (Jun 7, 2015)

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Anyone know if one can achieve M + AutoIso + EC on the production model 5DS? (along the lines of what you can do with the 1DX) At the moment, it is one of the very few things that still really annoys me about the 5Dmk3[/font]


----------



## Eldar (Jun 7, 2015)

I agree with those who question the relevance of these images. The choice of lenses are, at best, peculiar and the quality of their images rather poor (to be fair, my view is limited to the few I bothered to open). It puzzles me a bit that Canon is handing out these early cameras to people like this. One would think that the people first in line were chosen to act as good publicity. I cannot see how this can be regarded as good publicity.

So, I guess we have to wait for our own delivery and judge then ...


----------



## chromophore (Jun 7, 2015)

For a given sensor size, focal length, and shutter speed, the mean magnitude of motion blur due to camera shake will be the same regardless of the pixel density or size. However, the smaller and more closely spaced those pixels, the greater the sensor's ability to DETECT such movement during the exposure. This should be plainly obvious to anyone who has ever used a digital camera.

Diffraction behaves the same way: with higher pixel densities, all else being equal, the size of the Airy disk is the same but the ability to SEE the disk across multiple pixels is increased. What was once too small to be observable due to the size of the pixels, is now detectable.


----------



## iso79 (Jun 7, 2015)

I guess it will be a while before we see some in studio shots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Bghead8che said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry but this is some serious misinformation and is the same hyperbole surrounding the D800 and how you would "HAVE" to use a tripod, double your shutter speed, and take 10 handheld shots for 1 one you planned on keeping. The whole thing has been repeatedly debunked by actual owners.
> ...



Exactly. But...most RAW converters have a one-button loupe and/or zoom-to-100%, making that pixel level test an easy way to judge sharpness.


----------



## lichtmalen (Jun 7, 2015)

IglooEater said:


> @lightmalen couldn't agree more- I would love to see some *meaningful* tests and comparisons if ever you feel like publishing them!



I probably will, I should also offer an English translation on my otherwise german homepage


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 7, 2015)

lichtmalen said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > @lightmalen couldn't agree more- I would love to see some *meaningful* tests and comparisons if ever you feel like publishing them!
> ...


I used GoogleTranslate. It seems to work okay most of the time (Well enough for me to understand what people are trying to convey)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 7, 2015)

seanature said:


> The Canon reps said repeatedly that this is a camera that is designed for tripods.



And the same reps say that the 7D2, of same photosite density, is a hand-held all the way camera  ;D :.

All the talk about how the 5Ds would be impossible to use hand held.... :.

(that said, of course, to take full 50MP advantage you need slightly higher shutter speeds on average than for a 5D3 just as 5D3 needed slightly higher than for the 10D)

So personally, I wouldn't be so worried and afraid about the pixel count and tripods and so on.

(OTOH, this seems like a camera designed by a team of MBAs. All it offers is the, currently for a short time, highest MP count. It's not really the ideal landscape/IQ camera unless you are in a MP are all scenario, as the sensor is behind at low ISO. Personally I'd rather shoot a 36MP Exmor than this for top landscape or other IQ. And then the RAW buffer is hideous and since the MBA types were afraid of any hint to not induce people into needing both a 5Ds AND a 7D2 they crippled the crop mode to not work in RAW! So you don't get an OK and fantastic RAW buffer as with D810 for full and cropped RAW, but a poor and poor RAW buffer and you are locked into 5fps and dealing with giant, storage and card space wasting files even when shooting distant birds, etc. And then the movies don't include any basic usability features nor even special video AF so the video usability is much worse than any old model that can use ML or the ones that have the special AF for video. And then the movie quality won't match a 5D3 shot in ML RAW (granted that mode is a bit of a pain due to mega files and so on) and it doesn't sound like it will match the video quality of regular modes of other stuff coming out. It just sounds like a camera designed by some MBA who is protecting this and that and milking this and that. I bet a lot will keep 5D3 (5Ds ain't free, far from it, a nice trip or two or lens or some bills paid might be more enticing), wait on 5D4 or go elsewhere. Although for some it will be very cool.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 7, 2015)

Also keep in mind that early Canon samples tend to stink. For whatever reason, the cameras usually end up going in the first pre-release week or two to those who have trouble taking any in focus, non-blurred due to shake or motion, exposed properly, weird settings (in cam jpgs usually with sharpness down and NR turned radically high) etc. etc. shots. I never got it, since it seems like poor marketing, but I guess they prefer handing them out to buddies and good words over nice samples out in the wild. Who knows. But never trust the early samples for overall image quality (other than if you get a RAW you can use masked area to test for banding and DR, but that is a side matter) so don't ever be much worried by them.

(I should also add that I haven't bothered to look these specific samples over since I'm not interested in this body so maybe they are actually fine or maybe not.)


----------



## tron (Jun 8, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> seanature said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon reps said repeatedly that this is a camera that is designed for tripods.
> ...


This was very informative. Maybe this information was available elsewhere but I just noticed (apart from the fact I had already read that fps is not increased in crop mode...) So this is crippled intentionally for landscape and studio users and many 7DII users report AF problems. So it seems that there are no camera solutions when we are FL limited at least for birds... I am sticking with my 5D3s for now...


----------



## Bernard (Jun 8, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Personally I'd rather shoot a 36MP Exmor than this for top landscape or other IQ. And then the RAW buffer is hideous (...and...) the movie quality won't match a 5D3



Sounds like it's not the right camera for you! Your needs should be much better met by the 5D3 replacement.

On the other hand, I never shoot bursts, or use crop mode, I rarely go above ISO 1600, and I prefer dedicated video cameras. I do, however, bump into the limitations of current Canon cameras for fine detail in large prints. All the things that you list as limitations are immaterial to me.

Don't worry though, I'm sure the next Canon full frame will be geared towards you.


----------



## gary samples (Jun 8, 2015)

Reading through all the posts at the lack of Vision of what this camera going to do is just amazing !
:


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 8, 2015)

tron said:


> Maybe this information was available elsewhere but I just noticed (apart from the fact I had already read that fps is not increased in crop mode...) So this is crippled intentionally for landscape and studio users and many 7DII users report AF problems. So it seems that there are no camera solutions when we are FL limited at least for birds... I am sticking with my 5D3s for now...



What a silly thing to say. If a camera's fps is limited by the processor then it can increase the fps in crop mode, if the fps are limited by the mirror and shutter mechanicals crop mode won't give a fps change, which is more _"crippled"_? I'd argure ff cameras that can increase fps in crop mode are _"crippled"_ by their manufacturers cheapening down on the processors.

But yes, Canon have a target market for the 5DS that they think will be best served by the feature set, don't be disappointed if that doesn't include you or you can't devise a workaround to force it into your personal need, inevitably it wouldn't live up to your expectations anyway. The cost of ff 10fps mirror boxes and shutters is not insignificant and there is no reason for the actual target market to pay for them because you are too cheap to buy a crop camera for the jobs it is best suited to.


----------



## tron (Jun 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this information was available elsewhere but I just noticed (apart from the fact I had already read that fps is not increased in crop mode...) So this is crippled intentionally for landscape and studio users and many 7DII users report AF problems. So it seems that there are no camera solutions when we are FL limited at least for birds... I am sticking with my 5D3s for now...
> ...


I guess you are at "insulting mode" as usual. Or may be even more "Canon fan mode" than myself.
The fact that you prefer to attack instead of mere expressing your opinion could indicate a psychologically troubled person.

I believe there are some Nikon FF cameras that increase a little fps when shooting in APS-C mode so how silly of me to think that Canon could do it too. By the way I did not ask for double frame rate. Even 5D3's 6fps could be something. I also didn't ask for reports of 7DII problems in AF or locking. So I was thinking of possible alternate solutions in order to kill (ok shoot) two birds with one stone (OK camera).


----------



## gunnar997 (Jun 8, 2015)

Donald Page, The Tennessee Volunteers Athletics Photog got one 3 weeks ago.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 8, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I agree with those who question the relevance of these images. The choice of lenses are, at best, peculiar and the quality of their images rather poor (to be fair, my view is limited to the few I bothered to open). It puzzles me a bit that Canon is handing out these early cameras to people like this. One would think that the people first in line were chosen to act as good publicity. I cannot see how this can be regarded as good publicity.
> 
> So, I guess we have to wait for our own delivery and judge then ...


Canon has already produced their official marcomms and promo videos so they are now putting the camera(s) into the hands of people with a wide viewership regardless of skill level. They obviously have their viewership and anybody who is skilled enough to identify when a camera not near it's performance limits does not really need to input from such reviewers.

Take a look at TN for example. He has a huge following on YT, but unlike some reviewers he is also working professional and has produced good work. He got a review 5Ds-R last month and has been posting a set of interesting comparisons vs the D810 and 5D-III for studio and landscape photography. His impressions are generally positive considering how cynical and negative I thought he was in past months. While I don't agree with everything TN has to say, I fully understand him getting an early copy in order to share his impressions of the camera to his wide (global) audience.


----------



## pvalpha (Jun 8, 2015)

tron said:


> This was very informative. Maybe this information was available elsewhere but I just noticed (apart from the fact I had already read that fps is not increased in crop mode...) So this is crippled intentionally for landscape and studio users and many 7DII users report AF problems. So it seems that there are no camera solutions when we are FL limited at least for birds... I am sticking with my 5D3s for now...


No, it is not "crippled" intentionally to fit a profile - instead they defined the camera's niche by catering to its strengths. The software is limiting the ISO sensor output - And I'd make an educated guess that's primarily because of the image processing size. The camera can't apply as much NR and in-camera correction at the max output and still maintain a "Canon acceptable" frame rate for the buffer size - considering its not using C-Fast or UHS-III (as far as I can tell). There are only so many mbps you can push through the pipe at UHS-I class 3 (30mbps to be precise) where as a UHS III class 1 can achieve 220mpbs. C-Fast is as fast as many SATA SSD disks (up to 6gbps with current tech), because that's what it is only with a more rugged interface connector. But its rare, and C-Fast has the commensurate price to show it. By not using either of those formats, they limit themselves in A) data transfer rate from device to card and B) the amount of time for in-camera processing before it _must_ pump the bits to the storage device to clear space for the next frame. 

The sensor is nearly the same pixel density as the 7DmII, but covers almost 62% more surface area. Without dumping a much more powerful processor (or a pair of them) into the frame, they were never going to be able to hit the same processing performance - especially at very high ISO - as the 7DmII. The algorithms eat a *lot* of processing, and increasing the processing area (surface area pixel count) is squared in terms of processing costs. So its not 2*T, its T^2... and a bit, and that assumes no increase in pixel color depth. 

So rather than let very noisy images get out in the wild straight from the camera, (or have substantially longer times for writeback, and commensurately larger files) they chose to cap ISO at 12800, although going over 6400 is probably not wise. They actually do the same with all their cameras given the technology of when they're made. With current technology, you're not going to get very many more MP than what the 5Ds/5Ds R/7DmII have because of the limitations in physics. Some things *can* be done... but they're esoteric in nature and deal with complex computational algorithms or interesting adjustments to chip manufacture such as Back-Side Illumination. You either interpolate a proper image using calculation, or you increase photoreceptor size/efficiency. The physics (and physicists) are _not_ going to budge, unless someone develops warp drive. And even then... probably not in our lifetimes. 

The 7DmII issues are likely limited to a few bad bodies that made it past QC, a few users who haven't compensated for the higher pixel density, and a few users who didn't bother to calibrate their lenses. Remember, "a few" when you're talking about several thousand produced bodies can easily number a few dozen per thousand. And even a few of them, posting on every site they can, can make a camera seem like a real problem.

Does the 7DmII body have an inherent design issue? No. I had a "problem" 7DmII body, AF/Soft focus across the board. I noticed the issue right away and after some consternation exchanged it within two weeks. The second body has been perfect and is beyond my expectations for an APS-C sensor. 

By the way, the 5DmIII sensor is one of the best sensors produced by Canon. Other than some features, you are certainly not sacrificing anything to stick with it. If you get a 5Ds/5Ds R (or a 7DmII), you're going to be disappointed at 100 percent crops cause there _will_ be noticeably more noise on the 5Ds at anything over ISO 400 - and over ISO 1600 on the 7DmII - depending on the camera settings and in-camera NR. The 5DmIII's pixel density is far less than most APS-C cameras, and is certainly less than a 5Ds/5Ds R/7DmII. That means the 5DmIII will have less noise, all things being equal - and if noise is your image quality determiner, the 5DmIII will win _every single time_. That part is physics at play. Outside of construction and build quality, everything else falls to the user and their experience with the tools at hand. 

Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## tron (Jun 8, 2015)

@pvalpha I am satisfied with my 5D3s quality. I was thinking about 5DSR as a partial alternative to 7DII due to its issues (and it could serve as a FF camera at the same time). Otherwise I am not Megapixel maniac more like mega iso maniac which in this case 5D3 suits me. 

It is just for cases when I am Focal Length Limited (birds) that I started thinking differently (and the camera I would get would not make me sell my 2 5D3s....)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 8, 2015)

pvalpha said:


> The sensor is nearly the same pixel density as the 7DmII, but covers almost 62% more surface area.



No, the 5DSR sensor is 864mm², the 7D MkII sensor is 329mm². That means the 5DSR covers 262% the area of the 7D MkII or 162% more, not just 62% more.


----------



## pvalpha (Jun 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> pvalpha said:
> 
> 
> > The sensor is nearly the same pixel density as the 7DmII, but covers almost 62% more surface area.
> ...


Forgot the 1. I had 1.62 when I did the math. :/ Should have just googled it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 9, 2015)

Bernard said:


> Don't worry though, I'm sure the next Canon full frame will be geared towards you.



Only if it has Exmor-type performance which seems 50:50 (going by 5Ds no way; going by wild C300 II dual-read out rumors for 5D4 then yes way).

Anyway there are worse things to worry about.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this information was available elsewhere but I just noticed (apart from the fact I had already read that fps is not increased in crop mode...) So this is crippled intentionally for landscape and studio users and many 7DII users report AF problems. So it seems that there are no camera solutions when we are FL limited at least for birds... I am sticking with my 5D3s for now...
> ...



Even the 5D3 mirror box can handle more fps. Yeah a 10-12fps mirror box for FF is some money. But look at the cameras that have 6-7fps FF mirror boxes noways.

Also note that they made the crop mode only apply to JPGs not to RAW, so..... kinda seems intentional. That way not only is there zero chance for more fps, regardless of the mirrorbox, but the buffer will be poor for any RAW shooting too.

Anyway, whatever. If this is good for you it is, if not, not.

I think the 5D4 decisions are made by now anyway so it's probably to the point it's all pointless, either Canon will be on board for some users needs soon or it won't and that's that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 9, 2015)

pvalpha said:


> No, it is not "crippled" intentionally to fit a profile - instead they defined the camera's niche by catering to its strengths.



Boy is that ever marketing speak. ;D
You should head straight to Madison Ave. 




> The software is limiting the ISO sensor output - And I'd make an educated guess that's primarily because of the image processing size. The camera can't apply as much NR and in-camera correction at the max output and still maintain a "Canon acceptable" frame rate for the buffer size - considering its not using C-Fast or UHS-III (as far as I can tell). There are only so many mbps you can push through the pipe at UHS-I class 3 (30mbps to be precise) where as a UHS III class 1 can achieve 220mpbs. C-Fast is as fast as many SATA SSD disks (up to 6gbps with current tech), because that's what it is only with a more rugged interface connector. But its rare, and C-Fast has the commensurate price to show it. By not using either of those formats, they limit themselves in A) data transfer rate from device to card and B) the amount of time for in-camera processing before it _must_ pump the bits to the storage device to clear space for the next frame.



A lot of that doesn't make sense.

Also who was talking about high ISO JPGs here?




> By the way, the 5DmIII sensor is one of the best sensors produced by Canon.



It's not one of their best for low ISO pattern noise and none of their sensors are top class for random read noise. 1Ds3, 40D, 6D,1DX,7D2,70D, etc. do better for that low ISO pattern noise.
A few like 1DX, 6D, 7D2, etc. do better (per sensor area for the APS-C, not overall) for high ISO DR and also for SNR (which only matters at pretty high ISO since a little difference isn't that big a deal at lower, mid, lower high ISO compared t 5D3 since that already is pretty solid). The color filter is pretty thin compared to any of the older Canons.

It's pretty good if you don't hit DR limits. Quite weak compared to the best around at low ISO if you do and even somewhat weak compared to the best of Canon in that regard, even the old 1Ds3 being better. And it's a bit worse than the best at high ISO DR from Canon or others.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 9, 2015)

Anonymous Canon-bashing is par for the course on this forum. Read the forum critics enough and one might come to believe that Canon can't do _anything_ right. We are led to believe that every product has something wrong with it, is intentionally crippled, designed by a marketing dept., won't sell very well, blah, blah. It's fun to contrast that with the fact that some of the best photographers on the planet choose to do their work with Canon, and do excellent work with Canon year after year, even with cameras that were similarly bashed.


----------



## dolina (Jun 9, 2015)

ElBerryKM13 said:


> The only thing i don't like about canon is that why announce something 6 months prior to release date? Unlike other companies that releases new products a few weeks before shipment waiting for months just feels wrong.


They probably do this to pre-empt any leaks relating to govt regulatory requirements.


----------



## strykapose (Jun 9, 2015)

Would be nice to see a long exposure raw landscape file taken at iso 100, f/8 with any of the newer Canon lens at sunset or during the "blue hour"


----------



## benperrin (Jun 10, 2015)

strykapose said:


> Would be nice to see a long exposure raw landscape file taken at iso 100, f/8 with any of the newer Canon lens at sunset or during the "blue hour"



Well as soon as I get mine that's exactly what I'll be doing. Most likely with the 16-35 f4.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 10, 2015)

zlatko said:


> Anonymous Canon-bashing is par for the course on this forum. Read the forum critics enough and one might come to believe that Canon can't do _anything_ right. We are led to believe that every product has something wrong with it, is intentionally crippled, designed by a marketing dept., won't sell very well, blah, blah. It's fun to contrast that with the fact that some of the best photographers on the planet choose to do their work with Canon, and do excellent work with Canon year after year, even with cameras that were similarly bashed.



It is quite amazing to see the bashing that does go on. One could easily come to the conclusion that Sony and Nikon have no problems with their lineup. After comparing the 5ds images to the d810 and the a7r I've come to the conclusion that it's mostly nonsense that people are talking. The d810 really isn't as far ahead as people on this forum promote. In fact I came to the conclusion that the 5ds is a better camera for me. And if people can't take good images with the 5ds the problem certainly isn't with the camera.

Someone on the forum earlier spoke the truth. It went something like this. People buy better cameras and use filters as a shortcut because they believe that photography is about having the best equipment. But whilst equipment can help photography is actually about capturing light and that takes years to master.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 10, 2015)

zlatko said:


> Anonymous Canon-bashing is par for the course on this forum. Read the forum critics enough and one might come to believe that Canon can't do _anything_ right.



No.

(and for the record some of us anonymous bashers have, in the past, pushed tons of Canon sales, but unlike some, we call it as it is and don't get all fanboy and bend over backwards to defend anything and everything Canon has become; also for the record I don't think any of us say that Canon can't do anything right, I've still be praising lots of their lenses, UI for stills, etc. as have most others, heck I even defended the initial 24-70 II price)


----------



## benperrin (Jun 10, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> No.
> 
> (and for the record some of us anonymous bashers have, in the past, pushed tons of Canon sales, but unlike some, we call it as it is and don't get all fanboy and bend over backwards to defend anything and everything Canon has become; also for the record I don't think any of us say that Canon can't do anything right, I've still be praising lots of their lenses, UI for stills, etc. as have most others, heck I even defended the initial 24-70 II price)



But that's the problem. Lots of the people claiming that they are 'calling it as it is' are basically implying that Canon cameras are useless. Don't get me wrong I believe that Nikon has an advantage in shadow noise and dynamic range but these arguments have been exaggerated to the point where they try to make the Canon cameras sound awful. That is what is annoying. There are even people on this forum who don't even shoot Canon who just come here to troll us and tell us how bad Canon are in comparison to Sony/Nikon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2015)

benperrin said:


> Lots of the people claiming that they are 'calling it as it is' are basically implying that Canon cameras are useless. Don't get me wrong I believe that Nikon has an advantage in shadow noise and dynamic range but these arguments have been exaggerated to the point where they try to make the Canon cameras sound awful.



Just because someone says Canon delivers, "...poor, sub-par, unacceptable IQ," you think that's an exaggeration?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 11, 2015)

benperrin said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > No.
> ...



Nobody has ever said the Canon bodies are basically all but useless.

And Canon is so resistant to bother, it takes some over the top talk if they are to ever bother to improve.

Canon has a great stills UI, awesome lenses so it would be nice if they bothered trying more for sensors and bodies again. I mean what Canon user would not want that? But they keep applauding whatever they do. Oh low ISO DR doesn't really ever matter so who cares? The 5Ds is meant for slow work so what do you expect for buffer, speed, video, don't be crazy! COme on ability to focus manually while shooting, zebras? THat's $20,000 stuff!!!! Come on 4k???? slog formats? hfps video? clean hdmi out? LOL!

But look, it's not crazy. D810 gives a cropped RAW so it gets AWESOME buffer performance with decent fps in one mode and then FF and tons of MP in another mode, you get both in one. The D810 and Sony and other stuff use sensors made on modern fabs so they can make use of patents to give better DR at low ISO. The new Sony A7R II is like 42MP AND will deliver 4k video with internal 100Mbps recording! and not just jaggy 4k video but in Super35 mode it will deliver not only zero line-skipping but oversampled 4k and slog2 and 120fps 720P and 60fps HD and clean HDMI output....

With Canon it's just "We [our MBAs not our engineers, most likely] see impossible."

If you want Canon to do well and stay on top why applaud when they act like fat cats sitting on top of the hill and not bothering with this and crippling that?

I'd way rather get a Canon than an A7R II, but at this point it seems I'm likely stuck going the A7R II route (or maybe Nikon D820?? maybe it gets the 4k and 42MP and some cropped mode RAW?). Get a top 42MP landscape camera with amazing DR and potentially great 4k video and can still use my Canon lenses.

Sure the Canon stuff is not terrible by any means and many will get it, but you can't but see how they are so into internal segment protection and ultra-conservative milking. It hasn't directly hurt them much for stills yet (although I'd bet they'd have almost wiped the others out now and in that sense it's maybe hurt them from not having doing crazy, crazy well already), but it's already hit them in DSLR video fairly hard.

Anyway whatever. It's not as big a deal this day as the Sony's can take adapters so even if you love the Canon glass you still have ways to get better video and landscape cameras and still use Canon glass (even if the SOny stuff is kinda drag and not so all around compared to a Canon body). (And Nikon is always there too if you can deal with the UI and lack of Canon glass.) So it's really pretty amazing times for video and photo people!

One could hope maybe, just maybe all the video features on the new stuff will finally scare Canon into having to deliver and maybe the Exmor might finally make them go to new sensors for 5D4? (but then why is the 5Ds still and older type sensor in some ways). Whatever, we'll see, at least there are some relative cost effective options to go elsewhere and even still use Canon glass now (even if yes, the Sony stuff is very compromised as a general camera in many other ways so you may still need to hold onto the old Canon body too and decide on your particular compromise for each shoot, but in many cases the compromise should not be too bad now).


----------

