# 5DSR II?



## j-nord (Aug 2, 2017)

A while back there was mention of a faster than normal replacement for the 5DSR. Is there any new info out there? Is it likely the "high end mirrorless" body will be the replacement? I am still trying to hold out on upgrading my 6D (60k shots and some hiccups recently) since the 5DIV and 6DII aren't super compelling.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 3, 2017)

Nothing but this same question has been posted for a while. Why would a 5D MK IV with more MP be compelling? Canon does not make huge changes from model to model, so the next one will be predictable. Even a high end mirrorless will probably be a 6D MK II without the mirror.


----------



## The Supplanter (Aug 3, 2017)

I think *j-nord* is just being hopeful. There are a lot of hopefuls out there in the Canon world right now.


----------



## IglooEater (Aug 3, 2017)

It's a fair question. If you'd looked through the forum, it's been asked a few times this year. The only thing the 5Ds II is likely to bring that the 5D IV doesn't have is more pixels. Also less buffer and lower frame rate. I assume the resolution is what's keeping you from the IV?


----------



## BillB (Aug 3, 2017)

j-nord said:


> A while back there was mention of a faster than normal replacement for the 5DSR. Is there any new info out there? Is it likely the "high end mirrorless" body will be the replacement? I am still trying to hold out on upgrading my 6D (60k shots and some hiccups recently) since the 5DIV and 6DII aren't super compelling.



One reason for the speculation was that Canon seemed to be implementing its dual pixel ADC on sensor technology pretty quickly, so some thought that the SDSR might get an upgrade to the new technology. If Canon scaled up the APS-C dual pixel 24mp sensor to full frame, that would work out to a dual pixel 62 mp full frame sensor that could be used in a 5DSR II. Pure speculation, so far as I know.


----------



## The Supplanter (Aug 3, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> It's a fair question, if you'd looked through the forum, it's been asked a few times this year.




I realize it's a fair question, and I know that question has been asked before.

*j-nord's* post indicates that he's hopeful Canon's next full-frame camera will not be a disappointment, and/or that he's hopeful it will come out sooner than expected.


----------



## IglooEater (Aug 3, 2017)

The Supplanter said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > It's a fair question, if you'd looked through the forum, it's been asked a few times this year.
> ...



Sorry, I meant to address the OP directly; I didn't mean to imply you thought otherwise.


----------



## -1 (Aug 3, 2017)

The reports on experimental high density sensors on APC-H could indicate a 70MP dual RAW FF camera in the future... 5Ds2 or 1DXs? When? When is enough enough? The lenses would have to resolve too... Would such a system have a viable market?

It could be a Hassy lokalike studiobox:







Typo edit...


----------



## j-nord (Aug 3, 2017)

Thank you for the replies. I'm sorry its been asked relatively recently, Ive been busy and inactive on here for a while, just lurking occasionally. I am definitely hopeful that a 5DSR II would have everything I'm looking for. 

A 5DSRII would hopefully have more than just a m-pix benefit over a 5DIV. I'm optimistic that it would also have a flippy screen like the 6DII and no anti-alias filter. I'd prefer these features over the slight fps and buffer advantage of the 5DIV (Im assuming the MKII would improve over the previous in these regards too).

I do most of my shooting when hiking or traveling and I shoot mostly landscape and wildlife (often birds). Right now the options of 5DSR, 5DIV and 6DII all have pretty big trade offs, none quite as all round as I'd prefer, a tough choice.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 3, 2017)

The upcoming Nikon D850 needs some competition, so this camera is very welcome. Hope Canon won't forget to put ADC on sensor this time


----------



## The Supplanter (Aug 3, 2017)

j-nord said:


> Thank you for the replies. I'm sorry its been asked relatively recently, Ive been busy and inactive on here for a while, just lurking occasionally. I am definitely hopeful that a 5DSR II would have everything I'm looking for.
> 
> A 5DSRII would hopefully have more than just a m-pix benefit over a 5DIV. I'm optimistic that it would also have a flippy screen like the 6DII and no anti-alias filter. I'd prefer these features over the slight fps and buffer advantage of the 5DIV (Im assuming the MKII would improve over the previous in these regards too).
> 
> I do most of my shooting when hiking or traveling and I shoot mostly landscape and wildlife (often birds). Right now the options of 5DSR, 5DIV and 6DII all have pretty big trade offs, none quite as all round as I'd prefer, a tough choice.



By the way, *j-nord*, your portfolio is quite beautiful. Nice work!


----------



## tron (Aug 3, 2017)

j-nord said:


> A while back there was mention of a faster than normal replacement for the 5DSR. Is there any new info out there? Is it likely the "high end mirrorless" body will be the replacement? I am still trying to hold out on upgrading my 6D (60k shots and some hiccups recently) since the 5DIV and 6DII aren't super compelling.


It is as likely as the silly rumors about 6DII being a mirrorless body...

I believe 5DMkIV would make for a very nice upgrade of 6D.

Apart from that I would too like to see a ... normal (=DSLR) replacement of 5DsR assuming the sensor would be significantly improved. Having said that the 5DsR's sensor is already pretty good. I get excellent results in less than 1600 iso and very decent ones up to 2000 iso.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 3, 2017)

If they can figure out how to get a FF sensor using the CMOS tech from the 80D sensor without it being too slow they could have an easy winner here. 60 megapixels may not sound like a huge jump from 50, but the increased dynamic range would be a winner.


----------



## tron (Aug 3, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> If they can figure out how to get a FF sensor using the CMOS tech from the 80D sensor without it being too slow they could have an easy winner here. 60 megapixels may not sound like a huge jump from 50, but the increased dynamic range would be a winner.


I believe this is what they will do. However, I would rather have a 5DsR II with no increase in megapixels and a heavy bump on:

1. Its already very good sensor (like using the 5DmkIV technology).
2. Buffer space.
3. FPS.

That's it!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 3, 2017)

From what I understand, an increase in fps could certainly be possible if the image went from 14 bits to 12 bits. This is, after all, the trick that Sony use. 

Does anyone have any information on the visible effects on image quality? I am predicting that Canon would get flak for compromising image quality but the few comparisons I have seen show little to no visible effect on web pages.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 3, 2017)

I expect that the next generation will:

1) Share the same basic body design as the 5DIV; 
2) Share the same basic sensor as the expected 7DIII, upscaled to full-frame;
3) Again offer a version with and a version without an anti-aliasing filter; and
4) Have on-chip ADC.

Given the amount of time that will have passed between the introduction of the 80D and the 7DIII, I expect the 7DIII to have a new, slightly higher megapixel sensor than the 80D and that the 5Ds series will also reflect that bump in megapixels. (Possibly 28mp for the 7DIII and 71mp for the 5Ds).

By giving the 7DIII a new sensor, Canon can return to the practice of introducing the newest sensor in the highest level body and then pushing it downward to the rest of the APS-C family over time. 

I don't see any radical changes for the 5Ds, such as mirrorless or flip screen. I think Canon prefers to keep the body style as close to the 5DIV as possible in order to maximize manufacturing efficiency.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 3, 2017)

if they only used 80D / 5D IV sensor tech in 5D II, please. Thank you very much!

what would you say if your 5DsR II pictures were 15% sharper when viewed on large screen at 1:1 magnification or printed large?
this is roughly the difference beween -/+ 7 AFMA units out of tune lens and the one perfectly AFMA adjusted...
Or, say if you compare already very good prime lens wide open and the one stopped down by 2 stops? that is how much sharper the 80D and 5D IV sensor is at pixel level. The resolution of that 50-60Mb new tech sensor will be mind boggling. 



tron said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > If they can figure out how to get a FF sensor using the CMOS tech from the 80D sensor without it being too slow they could have an easy winner here. 60 megapixels may not sound like a huge jump from 50, but the increased dynamic range would be a winner.
> ...


----------



## M_S (Aug 3, 2017)

I am quite pleased with the picture quality of the 5DSR. Since I use a medium contrast import-profile in Adobe Lightroom, I can control the noise quite good in the lifted shadows. Compared to the Mark 3 I had before, the picture quality is already incredible. 
For me, improving further on that front would be Prio 1 and making the camera faster in handling. Dual CFast cards, or Dual SD UHS II cards would be welcome. Wifi option and GPS build in also a plus. The rumour that came and went of the D850 having a hybrid viewfinder (with peaking ability) would be huge plus for manual lenses.
MP count is good and I would not go any further than whats in the 5DSR already. Better DN in lower ISOs and higher workable ISO range to compensate for higher shutter speeds is also welcome. 
Done. Instant buy.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 3, 2017)

M_S said:


> I am quite pleased with the picture quality of the 5DSR. Since I use a medium contrast import-profile in Adobe Lightroom, I can control the noise quite good in the lifted shadows. Compared to the Mark 3 I had before, the picture quality is already incredible.
> For me, improving further on that front would be Prio 1 and making the camera faster in handling. Dual CFast cards, or Dual SD UHS II cards would be welcome. Wifi option and GPS build in also a plus. The rumour that came and went of the D850 having a hybrid viewfinder (with peaking ability) would be huge plus for manual lenses.
> MP count is good and I would not go any further than whats in the 5DSR already. Better DN in lower ISOs and higher workable ISO range to compensate for higher shutter speeds is also welcome.
> Done. Instant buy.


Compact flash needs to die already. 
I'd support a decision to implement dual SD UHS -II.


----------



## tron (Aug 3, 2017)

M_S said:


> I am quite pleased with the picture quality of the 5DSR. Since I use a medium contrast import-profile in Adobe Lightroom, I can control the noise quite good in the lifted shadows. Compared to the Mark 3 I had before, the picture quality is already incredible.
> For me, improving further on that front would be Prio 1 and making the camera faster in handling. Dual CFast cards, or Dual SD UHS II cards would be welcome. Wifi option and GPS build in also a plus. The rumour that came and went of the D850 having a hybrid viewfinder (with peaking ability) would be huge plus for manual lenses.
> MP count is good and I would not go any further than whats in the 5DSR already. Better DN in lower ISOs and higher workable ISO range to compensate for higher shutter speeds is also welcome.
> Done. Instant buy.


I agree! An updated 5DsR could easily be Nikon's D850 competitor...


----------



## reef58 (Aug 3, 2017)

tron said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > A while back there was mention of a faster than normal replacement for the 5DSR. Is there any new info out there? Is it likely the "high end mirrorless" body will be the replacement? I am still trying to hold out on upgrading my 6D (60k shots and some hiccups recently) since the 5DIV and 6DII aren't super compelling.
> ...



If it had a tilt screen for low tripod work I would have one. I am hoping the future brings the 5dsr2 with a tilt screen.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 3, 2017)

M_S said:


> I am quite pleased with the picture quality of the 5DSR. Since I use a medium contrast import-profile in Adobe Lightroom, I can control the noise quite good in the lifted shadows. Compared to the Mark 3 I had before, the picture quality is already incredible.
> For me, improving further on that front would be Prio 1 and making the camera faster in handling. Dual CFast cards, or Dual SD UHS II cards would be welcome. Wifi option and GPS build in also a plus. The rumour that came and went of the D850 having a hybrid viewfinder (with peaking ability) would be huge plus for manual lenses.
> MP count is good and I would not go any further than whats in the 5DSR already. Better DN in lower ISOs and higher workable ISO range to compensate for higher shutter speeds is also welcome.
> Done. Instant buy.


Pretty much +1 
I'm not bothered by the 2 card slots being different but CFast would be better (but more expensive)
Better low light ISO and the inclusion of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth & GPS would b great
In same body as 5D MKIV and the improved 61 point AF (the current 5DS has better metering than the 5D MKIII & same as 5D MKIV)
Would NOT increase MP, files already too big for some subjects so I shoot some now M-Raw. 

The 5DS gives great finely detailed images my only real gripe being low light performance but as a studio & tripod mounted landscape camera its amazing.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> From what I understand, an increase in fps could certainly be possible if the image went from 14 bits to 12 bits. This is, after all, the trick that Sony use.



Sony's compression seem to be a mixed bag these days:


The A9 has thorny clauses and terms. If you want 20 fps, you are locked in to compressed files and the electronic shutter. Uncompressed RAW will knock you down to 12 fps, and the mechanical shutter knocks you all the way down to 5 fps.


But their much less talked about A-mount SLT, the A99 II, _only drops down to 10-11 fps in uncompressed RAW_ from what I've read. 42 x 10.5 is still a staggering throughput, on the order of 2x what the 5DS and 5D4 can deliver.
 
And I would be stunned if Nikon's D850 (rumored 46 MP x 8 fps) will come with compression fine print -- I'm not convinced the _rumor_ is accurate (NR has corrected it twice this past week) but I doubt on release day Nikon will pull some fps / compression shenanigans when they do.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I expect that the next generation will:
> 
> 1) Share the same basic body design as the 5DIV;
> 2) Share the same basic sensor as the expected 7DIII, upscaled to full-frame;
> ...



Probably correct, but #2 may be an upscaled 90D sensor instead and #3 might not happen. With more serious video being left to the 5D4 [cough huge crop], one might argue the 5DS line is for stills only use and they may just go without AA on the 5DSR 2 and call it good.

But then again, Canon thinks we need a trio of tilt-shift lenses more than a great all-around 50mm prime, so what the hell do I know? :

- A


----------



## j-nord (Aug 3, 2017)

Well since it looks like a 5DSR 2 is at least 1.5 years away and I don't want to wait any longer on an upgrade... I got a 5DSR on order!!


----------



## tron (Aug 3, 2017)

j-nord said:


> Well since it looks like a 5DSR 2 is at least 1.5 years away and I don't want to wait any longer on an upgrade... I got a 5DSR on order!!


Good call! I bought a 5DsR this May and I was sorry I waited for so long!


----------



## j-nord (Aug 4, 2017)

The Supplanter said:


> By the way, *j-nord*, your portfolio is quite beautiful. Nice work!



Thanks!


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 4, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I expect that the next generation will:
> 
> 1) Share the same basic body design as the 5DIV;
> 2) Share the same basic sensor as the expected 7DIII, upscaled to full-frame;
> ...



On the other hand, Canon have already stated that they have considered the 1 series body as a home for its high MP sensors. Seems to me that 1DXX with XXXMP sensor and high FPS(maybe in crop mode) is a certainty before the 2020 Olympics, also there are patents flying around with pellicle or variable transmittance mirrors.

We can live in hope! right??


----------



## tron (Aug 4, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I expect that the next generation will:
> ...


I guess paradise for you is a new set of Canon EF 50mm lenses:

50mm 1.4 II
50mm 1.4L 
50mm 1.4L IS
50mm 1.2L II

oops I went too far. I was thinking about just 3 50m lenses ;D ;D ;D


----------



## bholliman (Mar 10, 2018)

TedYork said:


> I'm curious as to why mirrorless cameras are so attractive. I always tell people both my SR and my VI are mirrorless, at least when I want them to be. When I'm shooting landscapes my technique is to compose my image through my wonderfully clear optical viewfinder. Next I push the live view button, the mirror flips up and low and behold I have a mirrorless camera. (I do that to take away the mirror vibration. It also allows me to adjust my exposure and the focus points seem to go further from the center.) It would seem to me that people are not asking for mirrorless cameras as much as they are asking for electronic viewfinders. So far from what I've seen EVF's look much like a bad television screen that eats your batteries. Just my opinion, understanding it is a matter of taste. Guess I'll have to check out the latest Sony's and see if they have made any improvements.



I agree. Personally, I don't see what all the buzz is over mirrorless bodies. They have a few advantages and more disadvantages when compared with DSLR's for what I shoot. I keep up with the news and reviews with interest, but I'm very happy with my current gear and am not remotely tempted to replace my main camera with a different brand or mirrorless. I enjoy my M5 as a light-weight, occasional use camera, but I always grab my 5DsR and L lenses when I will be doing serious photography.

By the time Canon releases a 5DsR MkII (I'm guessing late 2019), I may be really to look at an upgrade if it has some features like tilt/flip touchscreen, DPAF, improved buffer performance and AF upgrades. I'm very happy with the IQ from my 5DsR and hope they don't increase the megapixals too much over the current 50.


----------



## Frodo (Mar 10, 2018)

I tried a friend's Sony A9. While the EVF is better than that on my father's Canon superzoom, there is no way that I would be willing to give up the crisp, clear, live image through the OVF for such an EVF.
Eventually the EVF will be as clear as an OVF, and offer some advantages, but we're not there yet.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 11, 2018)

TedYork said:


> I'm curious as to why mirrorless cameras are so attractive. I always tell people both my SR and my VI are mirrorless, at least when I want them to be. When I'm shooting landscapes my technique is to compose my image through my wonderfully clear optical viewfinder. Next I push the live view button, the mirror flips up and low and behold I have a mirrorless camera. (I do that to take away the mirror vibration. It also allows me to adjust my exposure and the focus points seem to go further from the center.) It would seem to me that people are not asking for mirrorless cameras as much as they are asking for electronic viewfinders. So far from what I've seen EVF's look much like a bad television screen that eats your batteries. Just my opinion, understanding it is a matter of taste. Guess I'll have to check out the latest Sony's and see if they have made any improvements.



If Sony had not had such a fantastic sensor, would we have seen so many people changing systems? I very much doubt it: I think most would have said 'that's cool but not enough to make me change, I'll wait till Canon develop one'.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 11, 2018)

My 5D mark II definitely needs to be replaced and a 5DS R II would be perfect for that. The huge resolution of the 5DS R would be so useful for all the cropping options it gives but I think I have to prioritise a speed improvement first and when I've used the 5DS R it doesn't feel any faster than my 5D II. If a 5DS R mk II could just push the overall speed and responsiveness up, even if it only kept the same sensor as the first version, that would be enough to push me to upgrade. I want to get many many years of use out of any camera I buy and a 5DS R with a speed boost would probably last me for the next decade.



bholliman said:


> TedYork said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious as to why mirrorless cameras are so attractive.
> ...


My main camera is a 5D mark II because I'm not one of those people who has to have the latest tech. I mostly use it with a Sigma 35mm. My next most used camera is a mirrorless Fujifilm X100T, which is a 35mm equivalent lens on an APS-C sensor. Honestly the two systems are pretty interchangeable but there are times when one is better than the other. The SLR is better when I know a photo will be viewed at a really high resolution, because that Sigma lens is so sharp, or when I need to make a strong professional first impression with a ''proper'' camera. The mirrorless is better when I need people to be comfortable or when I need to get the exposure right first time and won't have time to review and adjust.

I don't really care for the EVF because it's nicer to just use big the rear screen, but the EVF has its uses in bright light. Being able to _preview_ your shot instead of _review_ is great, and EVF lets you do that even with bright light behind you. It's a more relaxed way of working.



Mikehit said:


> If Sony had not had such a fantastic sensor, would we have seen so many people changing systems? I very much doubt it: I think most would have said 'that's cool but not enough to make me change, I'll wait till Canon develop one'.


I think just as many people would change systems but they'd be a different type of people. Think about everyone who likes to use old lenses adapted to digital, the Sonys are the best bodies for that. I'd like to switch to Sony if I could afford the cost of totally switching brands, but that's not because of the sensor. For me it's the video options, the tilt screens, stabilisation for any lens you put on and eye detect AF.


----------



## Talys (Mar 12, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> TedYork said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious as to why mirrorless cameras are so attractive. I always tell people both my SR and my VI are mirrorless, at least when I want them to be. When I'm shooting landscapes my technique is to compose my image through my wonderfully clear optical viewfinder. Next I push the live view button, the mirror flips up and low and behold I have a mirrorless camera. (I do that to take away the mirror vibration. It also allows me to adjust my exposure and the focus points seem to go further from the center.) It would seem to me that people are not asking for mirrorless cameras as much as they are asking for electronic viewfinders. So far from what I've seen EVF's look much like a bad television screen that eats your batteries. Just my opinion, understanding it is a matter of taste. Guess I'll have to check out the latest Sony's and see if they have made any improvements.
> ...



I've been using a borrowed A7R3 for the last few days, and I get why it's so attractive. It's a camera that promises to take beautiful pictures, faithfully recording what you see in the viewfinder and not requiring you to do much else. In other words... a perfect tourist camera.

The sensor is fantastic, but it actually isn't much different from a 5D4 in practical terms -- or even, gasp, a 6D2. Don't let that 43 megapixels fool you -- there are precisely zero pictures that were incredible, that wouldn't also have been incredible with 30, or even 26 megapixels. You can't really deeply crop amazing pictures out of that 43 megapixels any more than you can out of 30 -- a small object in the distance might get a few more pixels, but it's still too small to make a good photo. People crow about the dynamic range; in fact, you can't really correct overexposures by very much (same as 5D4), and lifted shadows do not look anywhere near as good as correctly exposed photos to start with.

On the other hand, the Sony has a horrible flash system that is infinitely inferior to even Yongnuo's knockoff RTs, is incompatible with pattern-style AF illuminators, and has only focus-by-wire lenses, and is painful to hold for more than a couple of hours without a egregiously overpriced grip. Battery life is "fine", except it's not, because you'll easily go through two or three batteries if you need a full day of shooting. The finger dials feel cheap, and the shutter button is set so high up with a ridge around it that it's impossible to gently depress (so as to not add motion to a large lens). The weather sealing is a joke.

It's a camera that's first class in many respects, but falls really flat on some key things that I think that a lot of photographers would value.

So why is it so popular?

In large part, I think, because Sony caters to a segment of photography enthusiasts that don't care about the things that it's not good at so much. I mean, I have met many people with $10,000 in their camera bag, who don't own and never want to use a flash. There are people who think that telephoto ends with 400 + 1.4x. Or who would never consider using a tripod and a long exposure. Or use an ND or polarizing filter. 

They are dismissive of the reasons for the size and bulk of a DSLR, and really just want something smaller that is easier to use and that is technically capable of producing professional-quality output.


----------



## Mancubus (Mar 12, 2018)

My Canon clock is ticking here. I've been waiting too long for a new body that at least comes close to the competitors and it's been only disappointments one after another.

I know it's about the photographer and not the equipment, but I simply refuse to pay top dollar for something that lags behind so bad in technology compared to the competition.

For years I've been waiting and my 5D3 is getting very old - rubbers are coming out everywhere, buttons are sticking, joystick fell out, shutter counter is over 200k. I love it and it has served me well, but it lacks many of the new features that would make my life easier.

When this 5D3 dies, I will need a new camera, and when that happens I'm hoping we will have at least a CR2 of a new 5D that can be somewhat on par with the A7III and D850.


----------



## Frodo (Mar 12, 2018)

@lexaclarke: my 5DsR is lightyears ahead of the 5DII I had. Even the 6D was an upgrade. Comparing files from a wedding shoot over weekend, the focus with my 200/2.8 on the 5DsR is about 95%, that for the 6D is perhaps 30% even with the centre point. The 6D is now relegated to backup or when I must use two bodies simultaneously and then I mount a wideangle on it. And in my view, the 6D was a major step up on my 5DII. The delay in 5DsR image review is annoying, though.

@Talys: I have really appreciated two things with the 5DsR resolution. The first is how it made my 24-105/4 produce substantially sharper files. The 5DsR-24-105/4 combo produces visibly sharper images than my 6D-35/2IS combo. Second is the benefit of deep cropping. I had to take about 20 family group photos in the post-ceremony turmoil of a wedding in the weekend. I set the 5DsR on a tripod then took 4-5 photos of each group. I later made vertical crops of small groups 3-5 people with plenty of resolution remaining. A bit like a built-in APS camera.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 12, 2018)

Talys said:


> I've been using a borrowed A7R3 for the last few days, and I get why it's so attractive. It's a camera that promises to take beautiful pictures, faithfully recording what you see in the viewfinder and not requiring you to do much else. In other words... a perfect tourist camera.
> 
> The sensor is fantastic, but it actually isn't much different from a 5D4 in practical terms -- or even, gasp, a 6D2. Don't let that 43 megapixels fool you -- there are precisely zero pictures that were incredible, that wouldn't also have been incredible with 30, or even 26 megapixels. You can't really deeply crop amazing pictures out of that 43 megapixels any more than you can out of 30 -- a small object in the distance might get a few more pixels, but it's still too small to make a good photo. People crow about the dynamic range; in fact, you can't really correct overexposures by very much (same as 5D4), and lifted shadows do not look anywhere near as good as correctly exposed photos to start with.
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing! Its good to see a balanced evaluation that isn't just based on specs and hearsay. The Sony hype-machine is certainly running at full speed in the photography media.




Mancubus said:


> My Canon clock is ticking here. I've been waiting too long for a new body that at least comes close to the competitors and it's been only disappointments one after another.
> 
> I know it's about the photographer and not the equipment, but I simply refuse to pay top dollar for something that lags behind so bad in technology compared to the competition.
> 
> ...



Please see the comments from Talys in the post prior to yours.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 12, 2018)

Frodo said:


> @lexaclarke: my 5DsR is lightyears ahead of the 5DII I had. Even the 6D was an upgrade. Comparing files from a wedding shoot over weekend, the focus with my 200/2.8 on the 5DsR is about 95%, that for the 6D is perhaps 30% even with the centre point. The 6D is now relegated to backup or when I must use two bodies simultaneously and then I mount a wideangle on it. And in my view, the 6D was a major step up on my 5DII. The delay in 5DsR image review is annoying, though.



+1 I have used a 5D MkII', the 5DsR is a huge upgrade in every respect. Its kind of a 5D Mk3.5 with a 50mp sensor.



Frodo said:


> @Talys: ...Second is the benefit of deep cropping. I had to take about 20 family group photos in the post-ceremony turmoil of a wedding in the weekend. I set the 5DsR on a tripod then took 4-5 photos of each group. I later made vertical crops of small groups 3-5 people with plenty of resolution remaining. A bit like a built-in APS camera.



Moving from a 5D MkIII and 6D to a 5DsR, I found the ability to crop to be substantial as well. This is especially useful for bird and wildlife images where you can't get close enough to fill the frame.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 12, 2018)

Mancubus said:


> My Canon clock is ticking here. I've been waiting too long for a new body that at least comes close to the competitors and it's been only disappointments one after another.



As someone who actually owns a 5DIV, I find this statement incomprehensible. 

Some personal history: I owned a 5DIII and I now own a 7DII, 5DIV and 1DX II. Bought the 7DII because the 5DIII was inadequate for sports and at ISO 6400, the noise of the 7DII is not that much worse than the 5DIII. 

Bought the 1DX II because I wanted the speed of a 7DII coupled with the superior noise and sensor performance of full frame. 

Bought the 5DIV late last fall because I wanted a second full frame body with a quieter shutter, so I wouldn't have to keep switching lenses on the 1DX II. 

I could not be much happier with the 5DIV. In fact, it is now my main camera and I use the 1Dx II almost exclusively for sports. There are a few quibbles (the lack of illuminated points is a real pain in dark settings and it would be nice if the metering were linked to the autofocus points), but overall it's now my main camera for shooting anything but sports and even with sports shooting, I find the 7 fps is usually adequate. 

Some people think the difference between a 5DIII and 5DIV is negligible, I completely disagree. It's more like the difference between the 7D and 7DII -- which is huge. You might not find it in "features" but it's very evident in performance.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 12, 2018)

j-nord said:


> Well since it looks like a 5DSR 2 is at least 1.5 years away and I don't want to wait any longer on an upgrade... I got a 5DSR on order!!



That will cause it to come out in May


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 12, 2018)

unfocused said:


> ..... and it would be nice if the metering were linked to the autofocus points),



Just a note on this: in matrix metering mode the metering is in fact linked to the selected AF point - to a degree, and has been for generations of Canon dslrs. Maybe you meant spot AF, but that is such a dangerous way of metering a scene ! 

Pleased you like the 5DIV. I decided to go for the 5Ds due to the (pretty steady !) type of photography I do and I'm generally delighted with the IQ.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 12, 2018)

Frodo said:


> @lexaclarke: my 5DsR is lightyears ahead of the 5DII I had. Even the 6D was an upgrade. Comparing files from a wedding shoot over weekend, the focus with my 200/2.8 on the 5DsR is about 95%, that for the 6D is perhaps 30% even with the centre point. The 6D is now relegated to backup or when I must use two bodies simultaneously and then I mount a wideangle on it. And in my view, the 6D was a major step up on my 5DII. The delay in 5DsR image review is annoying, though.


Every time I've used the 5DS R it has been better but not _enough_ better to justify the cost. Especially in speed and responsiveness. Maybe I'm shooting in darker conditions than you that are holding it back, but I've not seen it be any faster or more accurate. I like having the IQ but if I'm going to drop three grand on something it needs more than just IQ and to not just be way, way better now, but it also needs to be so far ahead that in ten years it'll still hang. I'm looking at the 1D X as the benchmark for speed that's enough to justify the cost.


----------



## Talys (Mar 13, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > My Canon clock is ticking here. I've been waiting too long for a new body that at least comes close to the competitors and it's been only disappointments one after another.
> ...



The 5DIV is a majestic camera. I'd own one, except I kept holding out for a full frame Canon DSLR that had a fully articulating (face forward) screen, because of the work I do. Often, camera is high up on a tripod, and I want a forward facing LCD so that I can recompose my scene without having to fidget with the camera. 

I ended up getting a 6DII, which is closer to a 5DIII's performance -- but even that is amazingly good.

When I hear people complain that the 5DIV isn't good enough... what I want to see is the kind of photography they do that is so demanding.


----------



## Mancubus (Mar 13, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > My Canon clock is ticking here. I've been waiting too long for a new body that at least comes close to the competitors and it's been only disappointments one after another.
> ...



You and Talys missed the point of my comment. This is not about what I need (I could do my work with a Rebel if I had to), but the value and features I'm getting for my money.

Canon is charging top dollar for a Camera that is WAY inferior to the similar priced (cheaper on release) D850 and I won't even get started on the Sony A7III.

When buying a car, I will evaluate what every brand offers for the money. Of course any option will be able to take me around, but I want to get the best I can get in the price range. There are engine specs, safety features and lots of other practicality items that can be very different when looking at competitors from different brands. The same goes for cameras with the difference that I'm tied up with the lenses and unfortunately changing brands is not as easy (or I would have done it long ago).

The options I have now from Canon are a joke. Of course I could perform my job with any of these cameras, but there are so many small stuff that Canon lacks that I can't get myself to buy anything from the current lineup (except the 1DX-II but I don't need the speed and I want something smaller). 

I want:
- no AA filter
- UHS-II on SD slot
- 1/250 sync
- -4EV AF
- Focus Peaking
- Focus Stacking
- Auto AF calibration
- DR and Noise same as the top ones from Nikon and Sony
- Automatic focus on eye
- Sensor shift stabilizer 

This is why my hopes are on the 5DSR2, please Canon don't disappoint me again.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 13, 2018)

You will be disappointed, so get used to the idea because they are not designing the camera just for you.


----------



## Mancubus (Mar 14, 2018)

AlanF said:


> You will be disappointed, so get used to the idea because they are not designing the camera just for you.



Right and wrong.

Right that I will probably be disappointed.

Wrong that it's a camera just for me. How can you not want any of those features? If the next camera has half of the listed features I'd be happy already.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 14, 2018)

Mancubus said:


> I want:
> *- no AA filter*
> - UHS-II on SD slot
> - 1/250 sync
> ...



I still don't get the fetish regarding lack of AA filter; do people think moiré is attractive? In side-by-side comparisons I've seen, the sharpness difference seems rather small, especially for a high-resolution camera. Why take a chance on ruining an epic photo with moiré.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 14, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > I want:
> ...



+1

I went for the 5Ds, not sr. Even for those who's greatest photographic pleasure is in analysing their images at 100% there is, IMO, a negligible difference after applying say 0.2 pixel @ 100% of sharpening to the 5Ds, so I was happy to save the £200.


----------



## tron (Mar 14, 2018)

One thing is certain: If it is going to be named 5DsRMkII it will NOT have an AA filter (for all its advantages and disadvantages). 

Apart from a sensor improvement (5DIV style) a faster frame rate and a bigger buffer I cannot find anything important missing.

Nice but less important:

A UHS-II would be nice but only as a second card. The 150MB/sec CF cards are excellent. I believe they would include Dual Pixel AF, GPS, Wifi and touch screen anyway too.


----------



## bhf3737 (Mar 14, 2018)

Mancubus said:


> ...
> 
> I want:
> - no AA filter
> ...



I do not understand the hype around sensor shift stabilizer (IBIS), either. 
IBIS and in-lens stabilization are both technologies with their own rewards and disadvantages:
1. In-lens stabilization is more effective when using long lenses. There are several experiments verifying this.
2. In-lens stabilization is more effective in low light because the received image on the sensor is already stabilized and metering/AF can be more accurate. Again there are several experiments verifying this.
3. IBIS is more effective when using wide lenses but may cause more vignetting because of sensor movement unless cropped a little bit.

If your use-case is adapting and using wide bright lenses in low-light and take advantage of IBIS you may want to think twice.

Also, combining IBIS and in-lens stabilization is not always rewarding and may cause sway or other unwanted image movements. Again there are several experiments showing that this may cause jagged video when panning.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 14, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> I still don't get the fetish regarding lack of AA filter; do people think moiré is attractive? In side-by-side comparisons I've seen, the sharpness difference seems rather small, especially for a high-resolution camera. Why take a chance on ruining an epic photo with moiré.


My partner has a 7D with the AA filter removed and it's a huge difference from the normal 7D. It makes his old 400mm look like a modern 600mm or something because it's so much more detailed. Moire is never a problem and that's only an 18mp crop camera. The way I understand it, higher resolutions make moire even rarer. When I've used the 5DS R I've always been blown away by the clarity and that extra clarity means I've been able to crop in, rescale, and apply heavier noise reduction for a cleaner, better-looking final image but still have more detail. Never seen moire or nasty noise patterns or any of the other problems people claim not having an AA causes.

I think the fact Nikon, Sony and Fujifilm have embraced not using AA filters so much, and they've all been so successful with it, says everything you need to know. And most medium format cameras too and some micro four thirds.

Having used and seen the difference between AA vs no AA, I find it really hard to imagine ever buying another camera body with an AA filter.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 14, 2018)

lexaclarke said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't get the fetish regarding lack of AA filter; do people think moiré is attractive? In side-by-side comparisons I've seen, the sharpness difference seems rather small, especially for a high-resolution camera. Why take a chance on ruining an epic photo with moiré.
> ...



Lensrentals did some tests of 5DSR vs 5DS and found the AA-filter reduces resolution by about 10%. I find the 5DSR is about 10% sharper still than you would expect relative to the 5DIV. I won't buy a 7DIII if it retains an AA-filter. I think Canon retains the AA-filter for video, but it is bad for stills.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 14, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Mancubus said:
> ...



Same.


----------



## reef58 (Mar 14, 2018)

Mancubus said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > You will be disappointed, so get used to the idea because they are not designing the camera just for you.
> ...



I don't care about 6 out of 10 you listed. Goes to show different strokes.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 15, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



If there are details that would be observable with a 10% increase in resolution, the the 5DSR should resolve them. If there are not such details, the 5DS will be as good as the 5DSR. For much of the time, it won't make much difference, for the some of the time the AA-filter will make images worse.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 15, 2018)

AlanF said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


I'm afraid this doesn't address my question very well: unless one is performing technical work (counting objects), the ability to resolve (as for a pair of binary stars) is not the question, it's the quality of the image. Except with very large prints, the human eye will not see the 10% difference. For those very large prints, my eye would be offended much more by moiré than by 10% loss of linear resolution. A 10% loss of resolution will slightly reduce sharpness; while moiré destroys the image entirely.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 15, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



And even then the 10% 'more' resolution that AlanF claim is moot; if you read the Lens Rentals article, the excellent Zeiss Otus only gave 5% more between the two cameras, and only in the centre of the frame. But also this is shooting a black and white test chart; if I used my camera to shoot black and white test charts I too would choose the 5DSR. ( If I hadn't jumped in front of a bus by then). When shooting in the real world with the Bayer Array method of computing colour I'm not at all convinced that you'll see this '5 - 10%' difference anyway. Certainly those that I know who don't have a personal agenda on the subject, when using the Pentax K5 vs K5s ( or what ever it was called) and the Nikon D800 / D800e and the 5Ds / 5DsR say that there is naff all difference even when printing at full sized output. 

However, generally it seems that the sales pitch of "no blurring AA filter" means that the next 5Ds/r will probably not have the AA filter, aka Nikon, Pentax _et al_


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 15, 2018)

You all can keep guessing at what you think you would or wouldn't see and you're welcome to want to feel good about your purchase of the regular 5DS, but I've seen and used a camera with an AA filter directly next to the same model with the AA removed and the one without the filter is _very_ noticeably clearer, with much better micro contrast and detail, and no moire even on a body with lower pixel density than the 5DS/R.

This is like when digital took over but some people kept holding on to film claiming it had more dynamic range and more accurate colour and digital was a fad. Like, no. That's why Kodak are dead.


----------



## tron (Mar 15, 2018)

lexaclarke said:


> You all can keep guessing at what you think you would or wouldn't see and you're welcome to want to feel good about your purchase of the regular 5DS, but I've seen and used a camera with an AA filter directly next to the same model with the AA removed and the one without the filter is _very_ noticeably clearer, with much better micro contrast and detail, and no moire even on a body with lower pixel density than the 5DS/R.
> 
> This is like when digital took over but some people kept holding on to film claiming it had more dynamic range and more accurate colour and digital was a fad. Like, no. That's why Kodak are dead.


It depends what you shoot. For example in a set of photos with bee-eaters the best photos (the ones with bee-eaters within reasonable distance had moire). The same with some glossy ibises.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 15, 2018)

My partner uses their non-AA 7D specifically for birds and hasn't switched back to our regular (with AA filter) 7D since. Having seen the pictures, I wouldn't switch back, either.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 15, 2018)

lexaclarke said:


> You all can keep guessing at what you think you would or wouldn't see and you're welcome to want to feel good about your purchase of the regular 5DS, but I've seen and used a camera with an AA filter directly next to the same model with the AA removed and the one without the filter is _very_ noticeably clearer, with much better micro contrast and detail, and no moire even on a body with lower pixel density than the 5DS/R.
> 
> This is like when digital took over but some people kept holding on to film claiming it had more dynamic range and more accurate colour and digital was a fad. Like, no. That's why Kodak are dead.



So are you suggesting that Canon were completely wrong in producing the 5Ds alongside the 5DsR ?


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 15, 2018)

I didn't say that at all.

I think it probably made sense for them to do it at the time because it was their first attempt at a primary body without an AA filter. (As far as I'm aware.) It would be a bit nuts of them to make a fairly significant mechanical change, no matter how good, without giving people an option to keep with what they're used to. Like I said, some people clung on to film for years after it was obvious digital had surpassed it. Some people still swear their film-era lenses are better than modern ones. So there were always going to be some people who wouldn't want to buy a body with a feature like that which the Canon line hadn't had before. There will always be resistance and some people need to be eased into new ideas. So making the regular 5DS made sense for then.

But now people have had that chance to be eased in and other companies have ramped up their use of non-filtered sensors to the point where most new ILC bodies don't have AA filters, right? At least ones in the professional price range. So from this point, releasing pro cameras with an AA filter becomes less necessary and you will eventually get to a point where the amount of people buying the bodies with filters aren't enough to offset the cost of making both versions.

Nikon did this before with the D800, right? They made a regular one and the E model which has the AA filter reversed. And the D800E was way more popular and since then they've just stuck with not having a filter. I don't know about the latest Sonys (mark IIIs and 9) but the A7R definitely sold more than the regular A7, both the originals and the mark II versions.

Canon kind of did a similar thing before with the 1D bodies, if you remember when that line was split. They did the 1D and 1Ds. Then they added a 1Dn and the 1DC. All of them did things slightly differently so people could get the version that had the features they were most comfortable with and needed. But eventually they all got folded into the 1DX models because the people who used to think only resolution matter started feeling like speed did matter after all and the people who thought they only wanted speed decided they did want resolution and the bigger sensor and splitting the models up is more expensive than making one model which takes the best parts of all of them.

So I think making the 5DS and 5DS R made total sense as Canon's first try, but for the second version it will just be the 'R'. I think the 5DS, 1D and 7D cameras will dump the AA filters and the 5D, 6D and 90D will be the ones that keep the filter. So the 5DS (no filter) line is your solution for people who want maximum resolution and the 5D (filter) is the line for people who want a bit of everything. Eventually, like the 1D+1Ds=1DX, technology will get to the point where the 5DS and 5D lines can be combined back into one and we'll have what I guess we could call a 5DX, which would have no filter and high resolution _and_ speed _and_ great video, like how the 1DX does everything the 1D and 1Ds lines did combined.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 15, 2018)

lexaclarke
+1 to your last two posts.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 15, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> And even then the 10% 'more' resolution that AlanF claim is moot; if you read the Lens Rentals article, the excellent Zeiss Otus only gave 5% more between the two cameras, and only in the centre of the frame. But also this is shooting a black and white test chart; if I used my camera to shoot black and white test charts I too would choose the 5DSR. ( If I hadn't jumped in front of a bus by then). When shooting in the real world with the Bayer Array method of computing colour I'm not at all convinced that you'll see this '5 - 10%' difference anyway. Certainly those that I know who don't have a personal agenda on the subject, when using the Pentax K5 vs K5s ( or what ever it was called) and the Nikon D800 / D800e and the 5Ds / 5DsR say that there is naff all difference even when printing at full sized output.
> 
> However, generally it seems that the sales pitch of "no blurring AA filter" means that the next 5Ds/r will probably not have the AA filter, aka Nikon, Pentax _et al_



https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/
It's not moot: the 300mm f/2.8 II has a measured better resolution on the 5DSR, and that is a fact that is not made moot because another lens acts differently. (The average value of the Otus was measured to be 8% higher on the 5DSR.) My own experience is with multi-coloured birds, not crows. You can stick with AA-filters, it's your choice, but I don't want them


----------



## Frodo (Mar 16, 2018)

Just shot three weddings with my 5DsR. No moire. Anywhere.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 16, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > And even then the 10% 'more' resolution that AlanF claim is moot; if you read the Lens Rentals article, the excellent Zeiss Otus only gave 5% more between the two cameras, and only in the centre of the frame. But also this is shooting a black and white test chart; if I used my camera to shoot black and white test charts I too would choose the 5DSR. ( If I hadn't jumped in front of a bus by then). When shooting in the real world with the Bayer Array method of computing colour I'm not at all convinced that you'll see this '5 - 10%' difference anyway. Certainly those that I know who don't have a personal agenda on the subject, when using the Pentax K5 vs K5s ( or what ever it was called) and the Nikon D800 / D800e and the 5Ds / 5DsR say that there is naff all difference even when printing at full sized output.
> ...



Well it is because you are not always achieving 10% extra. As you began one of your posts; if......



AlanF said:


> You can stick with AA-filters, it's your choice, but I don't want them



Precisely. But stating that a 5Ds owner is missing out on 10% extra resolution in real world shooting is misleading. The SR blurs, then reverses the blur in the way it is set up. I prefer the option to reverse it in post. 

If I put say 10 centre crops from identical images I have shot on the 5DsR and 5Ds in dropbox, with three of them being shot on the 5Ds but sharpness optimised in post, you should be able to clearly identify the three from the 5Ds. Care to have a go ?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 16, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> The SR blurs, then reverses the blur in the way it is set up. I prefer the option to reverse it in post.
> 
> If I put say 10 centre crops from identical images I have shot on the 5DsR and 5Ds in dropbox, with three of them being shot on the 5Ds but sharpness optimised in post, you should be able to clearly identify the three from the 5Ds. Care to have a go ?



You cannot reverse blurring in post. What sharpening does in post is to increase acutance (edge sharpness) which appears to the eye as apparent sharpness, it does not restore resolution that has been lost by blurring. Resolution is measured quantitatively by MTFs, which Lensrentals has done for the 5DSR and 5DS. If you don't believe their measurements, then so be it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 16, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The SR blurs, then reverses the blur in the way it is set up. I prefer the option to reverse it in post.
> ...



Whilst I don't think anybody here would seriously question the measurements from Lensrentals it seems to me we fall into that trap between 'science' or bench testing, and 'real world' imaging. For example does the Lensrental result come from a demosaiced RAW file? If so how was it processed and if different results can be achieved by different processing settings is that not a valid point? 

I can see where Sporgon is coming from, from an actual image point of view he personally, with his work, didn't see enough of a difference/improvement in sharpness to risk the moire (and it isn't that difficult to induce), and he is in good company because Kieth over at Northlight came to the same conclusion. Having said that it doesn't mean in a lab setting and with same (not optimal) processing settings then a difference can't be measured.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 17, 2018)

Lensrentals used Imatest, documented in http://www.imatest.com/docs/sharpness/

The facts are:
1. An AA-filter reduces, but does not entirely eliminate, the occurrence of Moire.
2. The higher the pixel density (more Mpx) the less the importance of Moire.
3. The AA-filter works by blurring by spreading points of light over neighbouring pixels.
4. Sharpening will restore edge sharpness but not restore resolution that is lost.
5. The advantage of absence of an AA-filter will be seen only when there is detail at a fine level that would be lost by by blurring.

I take 25,000+ bird photos a year, and see Moire in only a tiny number of them, mostly with my 5DSR but once or twice with my 5DIV. As I take repeat shots to get the sharpest ones, the Moire in those rare cases may be eliminated in the slightly defocussed ones (it's very difficult to remove in post). You pays your money and takes your choice on AA-filters. To me, a gain of 10-15% in resolution is equivalent to my 400mm lens having the "reach" of a 440-460mm in the absence of a filter, which is a big plus for my bird photography.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 17, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



This is pretty much the nub of it, and I'm sure AlanF knows I'm not questioning Lens Rentals results, but I am questioning the broad brush application of these results to the multitude of ways in which these cameras, lenses and subject combinations are used in practice. As I stated at the beginning, I see no significant difference once the 5Ds has been processed - personally. (Even less than "my 135L has a unique signature than no other lens can reproduce" ;D ). My argument isn't really with AlanF's point of view anyway, after all Canon made the SR for him and the S for me; it's the likes of posters who are strongly pro the absence of an AA filter and presume that anyone who wants one does so from a position of ignorance. One such poster can be found in these recent pages


----------



## AlanF (Mar 17, 2018)

Lively, but polite, discussion is what makes these threads interesting and useful. There are quite a few useful discussions going on at present.


----------



## degos (Mar 20, 2018)

AlanF said:


> 3. The AA-filter works by blurring by spreading points of light over neighbouring pixels.



Both AA-filtered and non-filtered sensors throw away an infinite amount of data, this including:

1. The pixels landing in spaces between photosites
2. The discrete values of all the pixels landing on each photosite, after being calculated to a single readout value

The non-filtered sensor is dishonest in that it pretends that each photocell knows all the data between itself and its neighbour and that the result was a hard transition between pixel readout values.

The filtered sensor basically says "dunno what was lost so I've graduated the transition to average it out".

Neither has more resolution.

The non-filtered sensor appears sharper because it insists there is a hard transition between neighbouring readout values. But it's a lie. 

.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 20, 2018)

That implies that the AA filter has some kind of intelligence behind it. It's not making up a transition between pixels, it's just dispersing the light less accurately.

Sensors with and without AA filters may technically have the same pixel count but the usable resolution you get out of them _is_ different. Just like how putting a less sharp lens on the same body gives you less effective resolution. The pixel count may not change but how much perceivable detail there is absolutely does.

If we were talking about a lens, nobody would claim a softer lens is somehow capable of giving the same detail. If Canon made a lens with a special blurring element inside, everyone would call them crazy. But put a special blurring layer on a sensor and you want to say it's not just the same resolving power, but actually _better_?

Look, if you like AA filters, okay, cool, good for you I guess. We've had AA filters on cameras for years now and it's not stopped nice images being made. It's certainly good for lower resolutions and video. I wouldn't want to try to film 1080p video without an AA filter. But we're talking about 36mp, 42mp, even 50mp still images. I understand peoples' reluctance to move on in technology but I don't understand, like I literally don't see how it adds up, this idea that an AA filter is _better_.
AA filters were made as a band-aid to fix a problem. Resolution of digital sensors was too low to produce nice smooth gradients and it got confused by some really fine patterns. So we got weird pixelated curves and false colours. The crude solution to that was to just blur the whole sensor. Now we have sensors with high enough resolution to reproduce those gradients and fine details accurately. More accurately than film was ever able to do and we never had AA filters on film. The problem AA filters were invented to fix is no longer a problem.

I get that there are uses for sensors with AA filters. Like I said in a previous comment, I'm sure the 6D and 90D models will keep AA filters and the 1D, 5D and 7D will adopt them slowly. It's not going to be a total switch overnight. People will continue to have a choice for at least the next what, six years maybe? Maybe ten? But you can't tell me that AA filters are somehow better and more "honest" than a non-filtered sensor. I doubt you would claim that a sharp lens is more "dishonest" than a soft one.


----------

