# 2nd body, conflicted 5DS vs 5D4



## Ruined (May 19, 2021)

Recently I got the 5DsR for $1499 deal from B&H. I got it because I wanted an upgrade for my 6D. I thought the 6D's 20MP count was more than enough, but wow the amount of detail in the 5DsR is just insane! Even with my less sharp lenses, the pixel structure is so much finer and more natural. Reminds me of the difference of seeing film grain on a 4K movie vs a 1080p movie.

So, I wanted to get a 2nd 5D body and now I am conflicted. Originally I was going to wait until the 5D4 dropped in price during the winter, but now after seeing 50MP I'm not sure I want 30MP. I could either get another 5DsR for $1499, or wait for a Canon refurb sale on 5Ds (non-R) for $1039. Or likely the 5D4 will be $1999 in the winter.

I only shoot stills, so video performance not important. Mostly do portrait and landscape but I liked the 5D4 for its versatility. But I am not sure the few more AF points and couple of extra fps is worth losing 20MP. What do others who have owned both think?


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2021)

I faced the same choice when I bought the 5R: sell the 5DIV or the 5DSR? The 5DIV went - it's more of an all-round workhorse but for me the resolution of the 5DSR was the key factor.


----------



## Ruined (May 19, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I faced the same choice when I bought the 5R: sell the 5DIV or the 5DSR? The 5DIV went - it's more of an all-round workhorse but for me the resolution of the 5DSR was the key factor.


So then question#2 would be , worth getting a refurb 5Ds as an alternative with the AA filter and save $500, or get another new 5DsR ? I guess this is something only I can answer, but 5DsR realistically may be my only choice anyway since 5Ds is out of production and unavailable for order everywhere.

Also I wonder how much of the look I am liking is due to the lack of AA filter vs 50MP?

Finally worth mentioning in your scenario I think an easier decision as the r5 can take over many of the 5d4 "versatility" duties if you unexpectedly needed them. So the question would be, if you hypothetically only had a 5DsR and had to buy a 2nd body would it be the 5Ds, 5DsR, or the 5D4 (taking the r5 out of equation).


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2021)

Ruined said:


> So then question#2 would be , worth getting a refurb 5Ds as an alternative with the AA filter and save $500, or get another new 5DsR ? I guess this is something only I can answer, but 5DsR realistically may be my only choice anyway since 5Ds is out of production and unavailable for order everywhere.
> 
> Also I wonder how much of the look I am liking is due to the lack of AA filter vs 50MP?
> 
> Finally worth mentioning in your scenario I think an easier decision as the r5 can take over many of the 5d4 "versatility" duties if you unexpectedly needed them. So the question would be, if you hypothetically only had a 5DsR and had to buy a 2nd body would it be the 5Ds, 5DsR, or the 5D4 (taking the r5 out of equation).


What are you using your second body for - a back-up; a second camera with a different lens? And what type of photos are you taking - if it's just for portraits and landscapes as you wrote, then aren't many drawbacks of the 5DSR vs 5DIV.


----------



## Del Paso (May 19, 2021)

Opposite here!
I'd by far prefer the 5D IV, for its touchscreen, and dynamic range, important for high-contrast situations.
After I bought the 5D IV, I found out that I very reluctantly used the 5D III, changing ISO, selecting focus area etc... I simply missed the touch screen.
But it's a matter of personal preferences, so, only you can tell...


----------



## stevelee (May 19, 2021)

Ruined said:


> So then question#2 would be , worth getting a refurb 5Ds as an alternative with the AA filter and save $500, or get another new 5DsR ? I guess this is something only I can answer, but 5DsR realistically may be my only choice anyway since 5Ds is out of production and unavailable for order everywhere.
> 
> Also I wonder how much of the look I am liking is due to the lack of AA filter vs 50MP?
> 
> Finally worth mentioning in your scenario I think an easier decision as the r5 can take over many of the 5d4 "versatility" duties if you unexpectedly needed them. So the question would be, if you hypothetically only had a 5DsR and had to buy a 2nd body would it be the 5Ds, 5DsR, or the 5D4 (taking the r5 out of equation).


I'm sorry that I don't have a link. I watched a video by a photographer who uses the 5DsR and the 5Ds as his two bodies, and sees no advantage for going to a mirrorless body at this time. He says he uses the 5DsR all the time, and the 5Ds is relegated to situations with obvious moiré, which he says he rarely encounters in his work. As I recall, he is doing product photography, so he admits that his needs and experience may not be that applicable to everyone else. From his comments about the two cameras, I would suspect that the lack of an AA filter is at least as significant as the resolution.


----------



## jprusa (May 19, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I'm sorry that I don't have a link. I watched a video by a photographer who uses the 5DsR and the 5Ds as his two bodies, and sees no advantage for going to a mirrorless body at this time. He says he uses the 5DsR all the time, and the 5Ds is relegated to situations with obvious moiré, which he says he rarely encounters in his work. As I recall, he is doing product photography, so he admits that his needs and experience may not be that applicable to everyone else. From his comments about the two cameras, I would suspect that the lack of an AA filter is at least as significant as the resolution.


Are you referring to the Keith Cooper 5DR R5 comparison , if so just google .


----------



## stevelee (May 19, 2021)

jprusa said:


> Are you referring to the Keith Cooper 5DR R5 comparison , if so just google .


No, this was someone with whom I was not familiar. Obviously Keith's comparison would be worth seeing.


----------



## Ruined (May 19, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Opposite here!
> I'd by far prefer the 5D IV, for its touchscreen, and dynamic range, important for high-contrast situations.
> After I bought the 5D IV, I found out that I very reluctantly used the 5D III, changing ISO, selecting focus area etc... I simply missed the touch screen.
> But it's a matter of personal preferences, so, only you can tell...


I've used Canon touchscreens before (T4i) and I am not a big fan TBH. Convenient, but not something I'd particularly miss unless I shot video (which I don't). So that would not be a factor. 

The DR is definitely a factor, but the 5DS exceeds the 6D in DR, and the 5D4 while better isn't mountains better. So DR wouldn't seal the deal on its own because of the 20MP loss.


----------



## Ruined (May 19, 2021)

AlanF said:


> What are you using your second body for - a back-up; a second camera with a different lens? And what type of photos are you taking - if it's just for portraits and landscapes as you wrote, then aren't many drawbacks of the 5DSR vs 5DIV.


2nd camera would be a second camera with a different lens. Such as, in landscape maybe a 16-35 on one and a 70-300 on the other; in portrait & non-pro events, maybe a 50 on one and a 70-200 on the other. In street photog, maybe a 35 on one and 85 on the other, etc. I am struggling to see what I would be missing from the 5DIV as well that I truly need, but on the other hand I also thought 20MP was enough and was proved wrong after I tried the 5DsR. So I am trying to tease out what people have found as true disadvantages of the 5DsR vs 5DIV in these primary scenarios. And maybe in a two lens scenario, I could pair the best lens with the best body for the use case - might be more inclined to use 5DIV for handheld telephoto due to camera shake hypothetically, for instance - while 5DsR could be used for wide & tripod shots to maximize detail. On the other hand maybe the 5DsR will just look better most of the time anyway, which means it would be best to have two 5DsR or a 5Ds+5DsR.

I guess I might try wildlife at some point as well, but then I'd probably be more likely to trade in my 6D for a 7D2 anyway for that to get the viewfinder crop factor and excellent AF.

For now, the 6D would be the backup & use for MF lenses (Eg-S screen) because its probably not worth selling.


----------



## Ruined (May 19, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I'm sorry that I don't have a link. I watched a video by a photographer who uses the 5DsR and the 5Ds as his two bodies, and sees no advantage for going to a mirrorless body at this time. He says he uses the 5DsR all the time, and the 5Ds is relegated to situations with obvious moiré, which he says he rarely encounters in his work. As I recall, he is doing product photography, so he admits that his needs and experience may not be that applicable to everyone else. From his comments about the two cameras, I would suspect that the lack of an AA filter is at least as significant as the resolution.


I have looked at some AA filter comparisons on the web of things like fine lines, and the AA filter really does seem to mess these things up. That naturalistic feel I am seeing might just be the lack of that diffusion. I know that moire is a big concern as its tough to remove, but from comments I've read at 50MP its hard to reproduce unless all you do is shoot fabrics all day long as your full time job. That's why I went with the 5DsR in the first place. I could save $500 and go with a 5Ds, but if it introduces that artificial veil back into the photos I'd say I will probably be disappointed.


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2021)

Ruined said:


> 2nd camera would be a second camera with a different lens. Such as, in landscape maybe a 16-35 on one and a 70-300 on the other; in portrait & non-pro events, maybe a 50 on one and a 70-200 on the other. In street photog, maybe a 35 on one and 85 on the other, etc. I am struggling to see what I would be missing from the 5DIV as well that I truly need, but on the other hand I also thought 20MP was enough and was proved wrong after I tried the 5DsR. So I am trying to tease out what people have found as true disadvantages of the 5DsR vs 5DIV in these primary scenarios. And maybe in a two lens scenario, I could pair the best lens with the best body for the use case - might be more inclined to use 5DIV for handheld telephoto due to camera shake hypothetically, for instance - while 5DsR could be used for wide & tripod shots to maximize detail. On the other hand maybe the 5DsR will just look better most of the time anyway, which means it would be best to have two 5DsR or a 5Ds+5DsR.
> 
> I guess I might try wildlife at some point as well, but then I'd probably be more likely to trade in my 6D for a 7D2 anyway for that to get the viewfinder crop factor and excellent AF.
> 
> For now, the 6D would be the backup & use for MF lenses (Eg-S screen) because its probably not worth selling.


I shoot mainly birds and wildlife. The 5DIV has a higher frame rate and in theory better AF and will focus over a wider area at f/8, and goes up to higher iso. In practice, I find the AF of the 5DSR to be excellent and as good as the 5DIV, and better than the 7DII - it also has similar reach to the 7DII and better IQ. The buffer fills up fast and can be slow to clear, but I never shoot long bursts with it. Although the iso maxes out at 12,800, you can push it through another 2 stops in post. So, the 5DSR is fine for wild life.


----------



## Ruined (May 19, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I shoot mainly birds and wildlife. The 5DIV has a higher frame rate and in theory better AF and will focus over a wider area at f/8, and goes up to higher iso. In practice, I find the AF of the 5DSR to be excellent and as good as the 5DIV, and better than the 7DII - it also has similar reach to the 7DII and better IQ. The buffer fills up fast and can be slow to clear, but I never shoot long bursts with it. Although the iso maxes out at 12,800, you can push it through another 2 stops in post. So, the 5DSR is fine for wild life.


That's great to know. But didnt you miss the relative 1.6x viewfinder magnification of the 7d2 when framing with the OVF? Re ISO I generally never shoot over 6400 ISO anyway because it looks terrible even on FF


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2021)

Ruined said:


> That's great to know. But didnt you miss the relative 1.6x viewfinder magnification of the 7d2 when framing with the OVF? Re ISO I generally never shoot over 6400 ISO anyway because it looks terrible even on FF


Never! Quite the reverse. It’s easier to find the target with a wider field of view and it is easier to track a flying bird and keep it in frame


----------



## Ruined (May 19, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Never! Quite the reverse. It’s easier to find the target with a wider field of view and it is easier to track a flying bird and keep it in frame


Never thought of it that way, but a good point! AF system can keep up even with the smaller target?


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2021)

Ruined said:


> Never thought of it that way, but a good point! AF system can keep up even with the smaller target?


The target is the same size on the AF sensor for FF and APspD-C.


----------



## SteveC (May 19, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The target is the same size on the AF sensor for FF and APspD-C.



Although it's true in the physical sense of how many millimeters across the image is on the sensor, it may actually matter in this case that on the full frame sensor, with its lower pixel density, the bird will cover fewer pixels.

I couldn't begin to guess whether fewer pixels would help or hurt things like autofocus.

But, you are talking about "tracking" which is to say moving the camera to follow the bird, and there, I can assure Ruined that one will absolutely find the wider field of view a help; fewer instances of the bird being just outside your field of view in some direction and you not knowing where to move the camera to.


----------



## Act444 (May 19, 2021)

Ruined said:


> Recently I got the 5DsR for $1499 deal from B&H. I got it because I wanted an upgrade for my 6D. I thought the 6D's 20MP count was more than enough, but wow the amount of detail in the 5DsR is just insane! Even with my less sharp lenses, the pixel structure is so much finer and more natural. Reminds me of the difference of seeing film grain on a 4K movie vs a 1080p movie.
> 
> So, I wanted to get a 2nd 5D body and now I am conflicted. Originally I was going to wait until the 5D4 dropped in price during the winter, but now after seeing 50MP I'm not sure I want 30MP. I could either get another 5DsR for $1499, or wait for a Canon refurb sale on 5Ds (non-R) for $1039. Or likely the 5D4 will be $1999 in the winter.
> 
> I only shoot stills, so video performance not important. Mostly do portrait and landscape but I liked the 5D4 for its versatility. But I am not sure the few more AF points and couple of extra fps is worth losing 20MP. What do others who have owned both think?


I have both the 5D4 and 5DSR. the 5D4 is my everyday camera and the 5DSR is when I desire maximum detail/resolution. I probably use the former about 80-85% of the time. If I *had* to pick one, I'd go with the 5D4 as it is a better all-rounder, BUT...that unfiltered 50MP resolution sure spoils you, I will agree with that. Especially when used with the 85mm 1.4 or 100 Macro...

And the 5DSR resolves quite a bit more than the 5D4 in my experience (at 1600 ISO and below). Compared to the 5DS cameras, the 5D4 DOES have a noticeably softer default output so be aware of that (you will need to sharpen at least +1 or +2 in DPP to match). On the flip side, there is less color noise on the 5D4 at 3200 ISO and above. I suppose it depends on what you shoot. I'd see what I like and don't like about the 5DSR and build around that. Are you ok with the ISO performance and the speed? Then a 2nd one may be preferable. Or do you find you want more FPS or to shoot sometimes in dark areas without being constrained by the 6400 max ISO? Then I might look harder at the 5D4 as a complimentary body.


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Although it's true in the physical sense of how many millimeters across the image is on the sensor, it may actually matter in this case that on the full frame sensor, with its lower pixel density, the bird will cover fewer pixels.
> 
> I couldn't begin to guess whether fewer pixels would help or hurt things like autofocus.
> 
> But, you are talking about "tracking" which is to say moving the camera to follow the bird, and there, I can assure Ruined that one will absolutely find the wider field of view a help; fewer instances of the bird being just outside your field of view in some direction and you not knowing where to move the camera to.


@Ruined is talking about the 5DSR versus the 7DII, and they both have nearly the same pixel density: the 7DII has a 20.2 Mpx sensor, the 5DSR crops to 19.5 Mpx. But, that's not the point with those two DSLRs - the AF is done on a separate sensor, not on the image sensor, and the 7DII has no size advantage.


----------



## Larsskv (May 19, 2021)

I would go for the 5DIV:

1. Dual pixel AF makes the camera much more versatile if viewfinder shooting is difficult. Face tracking makes shooting at large apertures easier. 
2. Dynamic range.
3. ISO
4. GPS and Wifi
5.smaller and more manageable files for editing and storage. 30 megapixels are plenty for most scenarios.


----------



## Ruined (May 20, 2021)

Larsskv said:


> I would go for the 5DIV:
> 
> 1. Dual pixel AF makes the camera much more versatile if viewfinder shooting is difficult. Face tracking makes shooting at large apertures easier.
> 2. Dynamic range.
> ...


So here is my issue:
1. Would never use.
2. This I consider an advantage I would use for 5DIV
3. I never use ISO over 6400 because it looks terrible IMO.
4. Would never use either.
5. Not a concern at all.

For my use case so far DR is the only significant advantage I am coming up with, but it is offset by the resolution loss


----------



## Larsskv (May 20, 2021)

Ruined said:


> So here is my issue:
> 1. Would never use.
> 2. This I consider an advantage I would use for 5DIV
> 3. I never use ISO over 6400 because it looks terrible IMO.
> ...



You know which camera you want. Issue solved.


----------



## Ruined (May 20, 2021)

Larsskv said:


> You know which camera you want. Issue solved.


Yeah I think I do. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.


----------



## Treyarnon (May 20, 2021)

Ruined said:


> So then question#2 would be , worth getting a refurb 5Ds as an alternative with the AA filter and save $500, or get another new 5DsR ? I guess this is something only I can answer, but 5DsR realistically may be my only choice anyway since 5Ds is out of production and unavailable for order everywhere.
> 
> Also I wonder how much of the look I am liking is due to the lack of AA filter vs 50MP?
> 
> Finally worth mentioning in your scenario I think an easier decision as the r5 can take over many of the 5d4 "versatility" duties if you unexpectedly needed them. So the question would be, if you hypothetically only had a 5DsR and had to buy a 2nd body would it be the 5Ds, 5DsR, or the 5D4 (taking the r5 out of equation).



Speaking as someone who opted for the 5Ds over the 5DsR, for cost savings - I did a lot of pixel peeping comparing example images, and my conclusion was that I could not determine any extra detail from the 5DsR (at 100%). The 5DsR shots were a tiny bit sharper than the 5Ds, but I figured that a bit more sharpening in post would solve this.

Speaking as a 5Ds owner - this camera is never wanting for detail!


Second question -> Why would you need a second 5Ds? If you are going to inverst in a second body, then why not go for one which will offerer some different specalisations to compliment the main body?


----------



## Sporgon (May 20, 2021)

Treyarnon said:


> Speaking as someone who opted for the 5Ds over the 5DsR, for cost savings - I did a lot of pixel peeping comparing example images, and my conclusion was that I could not determine any extra detail from the 5DsR (at 100%). The 5DsR shots were a tiny bit sharper than the 5Ds, but I figured that a bit more sharpening in post would solve this.
> 
> Speaking as a 5Ds owner - this camera is never wanting for detail!
> 
> ...


When I changed from 5DII to 5DS I compared both that and the R side by side, and I agree with you 100%. IMO it's a mistake to compare the 5DIV to the 5DSR and then from the IV data try and interpolate what you think the 'sharpness' of the 5DS would look like, because the AA filter on the 5DS is much weaker than that on the 5DIV. To match the sharpness of the S to the SR I found (using PS USM) to be in the region of 80% of 1 pixel, which is minuscule sharpening. Also the fact that the 5DSR does have the same AA filter as the 5DS but 'cancels it out' by passing through another reversing filter would rather suggest that if it's possible to reverse the effect of the AA filter you aren't going to be able to recover more detail than it allowed to pass through ! Ergo a minute amount of USM does the same thing.

Also the 5DS is very sharp in it's own right, and shot noise (photon noise)can become quite evident. I presume that this is because in the raw file there really is no noise reduction if you switch it off in the raw converter. This doesn't appear to be the case in say the Nikon Z files, which are suspiciously lacking in shot noise, yet according to Bill Claff of photons to photos there isn't any noise reaction applied either......compare some of the test comparison shots that some websites have and the Canon is definitely a little more defined. Odd. I'd love someone to explain that one to me.

When it comes to a second body, IMO the best one is somewhat genre specific. For weddings / social events I'd always go for two identical bodies as you're justing both equally together.

Another interesting thing, at least here in the UK, is that although the Nikon D800e held its premium on the used market over the D800, this isn't the case with the 5DS / R, where here the 5DS can actually be more expensive used.


----------



## Fischer (May 20, 2021)

Ruined said:


> Recently I got the 5DsR for $1499 deal from B&H. I got it because I wanted an upgrade for my 6D. I thought the 6D's 20MP count was more than enough, but wow the amount of detail in the 5DsR is just insane! Even with my less sharp lenses, the pixel structure is so much finer and more natural. Reminds me of the difference of seeing film grain on a 4K movie vs a 1080p movie.
> 
> So, I wanted to get a 2nd 5D body and now I am conflicted. Originally I was going to wait until the 5D4 dropped in price during the winter, but now after seeing 50MP I'm not sure I want 30MP. I could either get another 5DsR for $1499, or wait for a Canon refurb sale on 5Ds (non-R) for $1039. Or likely the 5D4 will be $1999 in the winter.
> 
> I only shoot stills, so video performance not important. Mostly do portrait and landscape but I liked the 5D4 for its versatility. But I am not sure the few more AF points and couple of extra fps is worth losing 20MP. What do others who have owned both think?


Very little you cannot do - photography wise - with the 5DS/R that you can do with the 5DIV. And there is a visible difference if you like the extra pixels. Video is where the 5DS/R really suffers compared to the 5DIV.


----------



## AlanF (May 20, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> When I changed from 5DII to 5DS I compared both that and the R side by side, and I agree with you 100%. IMO it's a mistake to compare the 5DIV to the 5DSR and then from the IV data try and interpolate what you think the 'sharpness' of the 5DS would look like, because the AA filter on the 5DS is much weaker than that on the 5DIV. To match the sharpness of the S to the SR I found (using PS USM) to be in the region of 80% of 1 pixel, which is minuscule sharpening. Also the fact that the 5DSR does have the same AA filter as the 5DS but 'cancels it out' by passing through another reversing filter would rather suggest that if it's possible to reverse the effect of the AA filter you aren't going to be able to recover more detail than it allowed to pass through ! Ergo a minute amount of USM does the same thing.
> 
> Also the 5DS is very sharp in it's own right, and shot noise (photon noise)can become quite evident. I presume that this is because in the raw file there really is no noise reduction if you switch it off in the raw converter. This doesn't appear to be the case in say the Nikon Z files, which are suspiciously lacking in shot noise, yet according to Bill Claff of photons to photos there isn't any noise reaction applied either......compare some of the test comparison shots that some websites have and the Canon is definitely a little more defined. Odd. I'd love someone to explain that one to me.
> 
> ...


There is much debate on forums whether the 5DSR is sharper than the 5DS. There is, however, a site that actually measures the resolution of sensors, optyczne.pl, the mother site of lenstip - one of my favourite sites. The 5DSR sensor out resolves the 5DS ( MTF vs frequency for the 5DS RAW is at the bottom and the 5DSR RAW in the middle, and jpegs at the top).
https://www.optyczne.pl/312.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5Ds__R_Rozdzielczość.html






Test Canon EOS 5Ds - Rozdzielczość - Test aparatu - Optyczne.pl


Najlepsze testy obiektywów, testy aparatów cyfrowych i testy lornetek w sieci! Jeśli szukasz kompetentnych informacji z tematyki foto-optycznej to trafiłeś we właściwe miejsce. Czeka tu na Ciebie ogromna ilość profesjonalnych i obiektywnych testów sprzętu optycznego, obszerne i ciekawe artykuły...




www.optyczne.pl


----------



## Sporgon (May 20, 2021)

As the two above the 5DS don’t have AA filters and the top one has it ‘cancelled’ that’s what I’d expect to see. I think the 5Dsr with its ‘cancelled’ filter is interesting here though. You only have to look at files taken on a camera with no AA filter to see that they are still not critically ‘sharp’ when compared to those that have had appropriate and subtle sharpening applied. The 5Dsr with its cancelled out AA filter is doing well........
This is what I was saying about the Canons, they are sharp, more so it would seem than the Sony.


----------



## AlanF (May 20, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> As the two above the 5DS don’t have AA filters and the top one has it ‘cancelled’ that’s what I’d expect to see. I think the 5Dsr with its ‘cancelled’ filter is interesting here though. You only have to look at files taken on a camera with no AA filter to see that they are still not critically ‘sharp’ when compared to those that have had appropriate and subtle sharpening applied. The 5Dsr with its cancelled out AA filter is doing well........
> This is what I was saying about the Canons, they are sharp, more so it would seem than the Sony.


What is truly remarkable is the the R5 sensor resolves as well as the 5DSR despite being 5 Mpx less and having an AA-filter. Canon wasn't lying when it said it would. The new Canon AA-filter is a breakthrough. https://www.optyczne.pl/457.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Rozdzielczość.html


----------



## Fischer (May 22, 2021)

AlanF said:


> What is truly remarkable is the the R5 sensor resolves as well as the 5DSR despite being 5 Mpx less and having an AA-filter. Canon wasn't lying when it said it would. The new Canon AA-filter is a breakthrough. https://www.optyczne.pl/457.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Rozdzielczość.html


To me its however also a testament of how absolutely amazing the 5DS/R sensor was when it was introduced six years ago. It left not only the 5DIII but also the 5DIV (not shown here) in the dust resolution wise. Really looking forward to seeing what Canon will do with the high MPIX R.


----------



## Fischer (May 22, 2021)

Ruined said:


> So here is my issue:
> 1. Would never use.
> 2. This I consider an advantage I would use for 5DIV
> 3. I never use ISO over 6400 because it looks terrible IMO.
> ...


DR only matter sometimes. Resolution matter always. High ISO (>400 ISO) is the same on the two. AF on the 5DIV is a little better, but the 5DS/R has excellent AF for photography - and importantly it does low light AF. Get the tool that works for you.


----------



## AlanF (May 22, 2021)

Fischer said:


> To me its however also a testament of how absolutely amazing the 5DS/R sensor was when it was introduced six years ago. It left not only the 5DIII but also the 5DIV (not shown here) in the dust resolution wise. Really looking forward to seeing what Canon will do with the high MPIX R.


Yes, I am not selling my 5DSR. What shocked me when I was out with my wife and she was using the 5DSR+100-400mm II+1.4xTC that she got sharper shots than me using the 5DIV+400mm DO II+2xTC of the same birds at the same distance.


----------



## Ruined (May 22, 2021)

Treyarnon said:


> Speaking as someone who opted for the 5Ds over the 5DsR, for cost savings - I did a lot of pixel peeping comparing example images, and my conclusion was that I could not determine any extra detail from the 5DsR (at 100%). The 5DsR shots were a tiny bit sharper than the 5Ds, but I figured that a bit more sharpening in post would solve this.
> 
> Speaking as a 5Ds owner - this camera is never wanting for detail!
> 
> ...


5ds isn't easily attainable anymore so that may be a moot point. On the other hand, you can still order 5DsR from B&H new for 1499, though might take a month to get .

Re: 2nd body, I like to use two bodies shooting at once, like a wide on one and a tele on the other. You can approach this in two ways , get two different bodies that will excel at different tasks ; or , get two of the same bodies. The advantage of two of the same is that - in the different case, if one body is better than the other for 90% of what you use - then two of the same is better than having your second camera that only excels 10% of the time and there is less thought involved in lens swaps


----------



## stevelee (May 22, 2021)

Fischer said:


> DR only matter sometimes. Resolution matter always. High ISO (>400 ISO) is the same on the two. AF on the 5DIV is a little better, but the 5DS/R has excellent AF for photography - and importantly it does low light AF. Get the tool that works for you.


I don't really disagree with you overall, but I find that 20 or 26 MP is usually more resolution than I need for what I am doing. Would I wind up with slightly better pictures in those instances if I had started off with 50MP files? I don't know. Perhaps marginally so, perhaps it depends upon Photoshop more than anything. Except for stitched panoramas, I never print anything larger than 13" x 19". Would the prints look a tad sharper when viewed from 4" away if originally shot at 50MP? Maybe, but I wouldn't say that "matters." As a practical matter, at my age if I view prints that close, they look really blurry. With reading glasses I could get 6" or 8" away.


----------



## Ruined (May 22, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I don't really disagree with you overall, but I find that 20 or 26 MP is usually more resolution than I need for what I am doing. Would I wind up with slightly better pictures in those instances if I had started off with 50MP files? I don't know. Perhaps marginally so, perhaps it depends upon Photoshop more than anything. Except for stitched panoramas, I never print anything larger than 13" x 19". Would the prints look a tad sharper when viewed from 4" away if originally shot at 50MP? Maybe, but I wouldn't say that "matters." As a practical matter, at my age if I view prints that close, they look really blurry. With reading glasses I could get 6" or 8" away.


You could argue this for pretty much anything in photography. Will someone notice the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4? Will someone notice a little bit more dynamic range? Will someone notice the difference with slightly lower iso noise?

So a lot is really what makes the shooter happy, though threads like this are good to ensure nothing is being missed in featureset & practical use


----------



## stevelee (May 22, 2021)

Ruined said:


> You could argue this for pretty much anything in photography. Will someone notice the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4? Will someone notice a little bit more dynamic range? Will someone notice the difference with slightly lower iso noise?
> 
> So a lot is really what makes the shooter happy, though threads like this are good to ensure nothing is being missed in featureset & practical use


It is not a matter of will anyone out there notice, but as you later suggest, does it work for me. If I were doing product photography for a high-end magazine then even the differences between the flavors of the hi-res 5D bodies would be of interest. I was disagreeing with the word "always" more than anything else.


----------



## Ruined (May 22, 2021)

stevelee said:


> It is not a matter of will anyone out there notice, but as you later suggest, does it work for me. If I were doing product photography for a high-end magazine then even the differences between the flavors of the hi-res 5D bodies would be of interest. I was disagreeing with the word "always" more than anything else.


Alright, I was just saying that a lot of the time the photographer cares more about the small technical differences a lot more than the average viewer or client does.

Also while your statement is true, one of the neat things about a high res sensor is the cropping power. So if for whatever reason you needed to use Center AF point for instance due to positioning etc, you could crop away 1/3 of the frame and still have a normal full resolution file for instance - while with a 20MP sensor if you did this for your use case it may be more noticable to you. Or, if you can't get close enough because the lens you have won't reach (because we don't always anticipate everything that happens) the high MP gives you a much better shot of a high detail image as well.

I started out this thread saying that prior to buying the 6D I thought 20MP was more than enough for my photography, and I did really think this. And 20MP is probably "enough." But after trying 50MP it is a big eye opener how much extra flexibility and detail is now possible. I wouldn't give up everything for this detail, but I would give up a little bit (like the DR advantage of the 5D4)


----------



## stevelee (May 22, 2021)

My longest lens is the 100-400mm II zoom. Pictures I have shot of the moon or the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction needed a good bit of cropping. More resolution would have been good if had wanted to make big prints. Otherwise I can’t recall a need for more.

For travel I find the 120mm equivalent on my G5X II to be plenty. I’m more likely to feel limited on the 24mm end.


----------



## Ruined (May 23, 2021)

AlanF said:


> What is truly remarkable is the the R5 sensor resolves as well as the 5DSR despite being 5 Mpx less and having an AA-filter. Canon wasn't lying when it said it would. The new Canon AA-filter is a breakthrough. https://www.optyczne.pl/457.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Rozdzielczość.html


It may be possible that the new less aggressive AA filter is simply less destructive than the combined 2 filters in the 5DsR the light has to go through before it hits the sensor. While the 2nd filter of the 5DsR is a cancelling filter its not perfect and that matters with pixels this small.

If you took out the AA filter entirely from R5, it probably would be even better measuring than current R5 measurements - it makes sense that this would be the case no matter what Canon marketing says; and given the extensive testing with the 5DsR, AA filter at 50MP has been proven wholly unnecessary if not counter-productive. But then, of course, canon wouldn't be able to sell you the R5sR in addition to the R5 - classic Canon product segmentation


----------



## AlanF (May 23, 2021)

Ruined said:


> It may be possible that the new less aggressive AA filter is simply less destructive than the combined 2 filters in the 5DsR the light has to go through before it hits the sensor. While the 2nd filter of the 5DsR is a cancelling filter its not perfect and that matters with pixels this small.
> 
> If you took out the AA filter entirely from R5, it probably would be even better measuring than current R5 measurements - it makes sense that this would be the case no matter what Canon marketing says; and given the extensive testing with the 5DsR, AA filter at 50MP has been proven wholly unnecessary if not counter-productive. But then, of course, canon wouldn't be able to sell you the R5sR in addition to the R5 - classic Canon product segmentation


I am a long time anti-anti-alias filter proponent. You can see from one of my previous posts that the resolution of the R5 sensor is only slightly below that of the acclaimed Z7/D850 sensor which has the same pixel count but without the AA-filter. So, Canon could increase the resolution a bit. In return, I have had none of the infrequent examples of Moire I have had with the 5DSR or D850 when using the R5. I believe that Canon retains the AA-filter as feature for video users as Moire affects video recordings - the 5DSR was not aimed at video. So, I can live with the very low level of blurring from the R5 sensor.


----------



## Ruined (May 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I am a long time anti-anti-alias filter proponent. You can see from one of my previous posts that the resolution of the R5 sensor is only slightly below that of the acclaimed Z7/D850 sensor which has the same pixel count but without the AA-filter. So, Canon could increase the resolution a bit. In return, I have had none of the infrequent examples of Moire I have had with the 5DSR or D850 when using the R5. I believe that Canon retains the AA-filter as feature for video users as Moire affects video recordings - the 5DSR was not aimed at video. So, I can live with the very low level of blurring from the R5 sensor.


I've pretty extensively researched tons of examples of moire on the 5dsr vs 5ds from people who owned both and tried to find moire, which is the perfect comparison since they are identical besides the canceling filter.

The only cases i could find of significant moire on the 5dsr also showed significant moire on the 5ds, just a bit less of it. So it's not like you are avoiding moire, you are just making it a bit less prominent in some select (<1%) cases in exchange for all of your pictures being less sharp. This was useful for stills at 20mp but not so much at 51mp.

For stills I don't think that's worth the tradeoff and video is probably why they put it in the R5 - in video it is definitely still useful at 45mp. I am betting the R5s won't have an AA filter. The current 5DsR runout / closeout demonstrates the 5DsR was a much more popular camera as they aren't even bothering making any 5Ds anymore with the remaining sensors.


----------



## Sporgon (May 25, 2021)

Ruined said:


> The current 5DsR runout / closeout demonstrates the 5DsR was a much more popular camera as they aren't even bothering making any 5Ds anymore with the remaining sensors.


How do you know that Canon sold more of the r version ? Maybe the fact that you can still get one demonstrates that the plain s version sold out earlier ?


----------



## Ruined (May 25, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> How do you know that Canon sold more of the r version ? Maybe the fact that you can still get one demonstrates that the plain s version sold out earlier ?


I don't think the production of the R version actually ended when it was claimed it did by rumors sites well over a year ago. If it did, it would be long gone by now (like the 5ds), as it does not take 1.5 years to ship out remaining already manufactured camera inventory - 6 months tops. But, B&H continues to get shipments to this day, well over a year later. Instead, what likely occurred is that Canon likely continued to assemble 5DsR cameras at a slower pace (due to covid and more important priorities) with the 5ds/r sensors remaining in stock. By having 5ds truly discontinued so much earlier than 5dsr, that makes it likely Canon chose the 5dsr version to be the one that covers the runout period to the new high MP replacement; the reason Canon would do this is to simplify production lines so they do not need two different lines to manufacture slightly different cameras that both have no future - it makes more sense to only continue to make the one that is more popular and thus is easier to sell. It's really not a surprise they would make this choice as for every 1 person you find recommending the 5Ds over the 5DsR, you find 10 recommending the 5DsR over the 5Ds (both reviewers and users)


----------



## Juppeck (Jun 9, 2021)

I use a 5Ds and also a 5D4. Why? Because the EOS 5Ds (R) is hardly suitable for taking effective photos in less than ideal lighting conditions. The 50MPixel sensor is hardly free of noise above ISO600. That restricts. The EOS 5DMK4 is incredibly sensitive and does not rustle that quickly. This makes the camera a reliable system even under difficult lighting conditions. Alternatively, an EOS R could be used. I use this especially with low-light.


----------

