Canon 5DS/5DR

kdogkdog artistically challengedSan Jose, CAAdministrators Posts: 11,661 moderator
edited February 18, 2015 in Cameras
The widely rumored 50-megapixel Canon 5DS is now officially listed on Canon's website, along with the 5DR and new EF 11-24 lens. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer?pageKeyCode=57

B&H already has the 5DS listed for $3700: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119026-REG/canon_0581c002_eos_5ds_dslr_camera.html

Highest resolution DSLR in the industry. Pretty exciting stuff. :nod

High ISO range only goes up to ISO6400. I hope that's not an indicator of high ISO performance in general, but rather an artifact of the stated increased color accuracy. I can't wait to see some sample shots.
«1

Comments

  • David_S85David_S85 Spotter of Dgrin Spam and Oddities ChicagolandAdministrators Posts: 12,796 moderator
    edited February 6, 2015
    June. I can keep some of my money for a while then. rolleyes1.gif

    Video enthusiasts need not apply. They really cut the options there. Otherwise, pretty cool stuff. Has anyone found out officially if that's a Sony sensor in there? What I care most about isn't all the fuss over the MP's, but if there's any more usable dynamic range that can be gained out of the sensor. Sony's been kicking Canon's butt in that regard. It would be nice to see if there's been a leveling of the playing field.

    EDIT:
    Err, no. Canon says the sensors were produced by Canon. So unless they've been to the mountain, it may very well be the same DR as before. Damn.

    Cnet came out with a video of these bodies earlier today. Others will follow very soon.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • David_S85David_S85 Spotter of Dgrin Spam and Oddities ChicagolandAdministrators Posts: 12,796 moderator
    edited February 6, 2015
    Canon videos of the new wundercam(s)

    http://youtu.be/Hl6AKRadEsw

    http://youtu.be/uiKD2spGWk8

    http://youtu.be/1gzrnneiHM4

    http://youtu.be/UOQ9cIp9RqY

    facts learned:
    288MB RAW size per shot (16 bit). Gulp.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • kdogkdog artistically challenged San Jose, CAAdministrators Posts: 11,661 moderator
    edited February 6, 2015
    Ugh. At the end of the first video, he came right out and said the high ISO performance is not as good as the 1DX. :bluduh
  • David_S85David_S85 Spotter of Dgrin Spam and Oddities ChicagolandAdministrators Posts: 12,796 moderator
    edited February 6, 2015
    Perhaps then you'll want to stick around for the later 2015 announcements of the 5DC or the 5DIV. Yes, there will be a total of five current 5D models. Not. Kidding.

    And the video performance of the new 5Ds is right up there with my just delivered today Canon SL1 (less than $200 now). :lol

    Reading the First Impressions over at DPR, I'm thinking this series will become the new whipping boy. Really disappointing what they could have done, but didn't. Two steps forwards and at the same time two steps backwards. This means the most advanced sensor in Canon's line remains in Canon's recent little G7X (Sony sensor). eek7.gif

    And Sony will be laughing, quite literally, all the way to the bank.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • David_S85David_S85 Spotter of Dgrin Spam and Oddities ChicagolandAdministrators Posts: 12,796 moderator
    edited February 6, 2015
    What I'm reading so far isn't good for Canon. Even the Canon fan boys are speaking up. Same DR (so says Westfall), possibly more noise at similar ISO's. Same sensor tech as the 7DII but without dual pixel (or it is not enabled). Creative video capabilities have been removed. Mirror lockup with no first curtain shutter? Their Rebel line actually looks more advanced in many ways. Seems like a marketing rush job to counter the D810 and upcoming Sony A8 50MP or whatever. The more advanced Sony 50MP sensors (and higher DR) are about to be released on the street in a few short weeks. That might sting when measured back to Canon's.

    But, at the same time, more advanced mirror lock-up controls, tank-like construction, and time-lapse intervalometer modes for the stills to time lapse movie makers. The SD card slot drive finally moves up in spec to modern cards. So they've kinda caught up to Nikon in those departments. The ergonomics are at a stage where everything just fits the hand right and they're not changing that in the least. Look how they've turned the 7DII into a junior 5DIII, and there's still more models to come in this series later in the year.

    Nothing yet about this 5Ds or 5Dsr makes me want to even remotely part with my 5DIII. In fact, if they still can't move the DR up the scale, they'll be losing even more shooters to Nikon and Sony. And Nikon has the good lenses too. Sony - not so much.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • cmasoncmason Old dog, new tricks Raleigh, NCRegistered Users Posts: 2,506 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2015
    These were not meant to replace the 5DMkIII, though Canon has trained us to assume a "Ds" model is better than the "non-s" model. In this case, better only means higher resolution, at the expense of other benefits. By way of comparison, I don't recall the 1Ds being worse at anything over the 1D. Perhaps they should have used a different letter.

    I can see they are trying to do trade-offs, to target different users. I suppose if landscape and architecture are your business, this camera is perfect: you don't need high ISO, since you always use a tripod.

    I guess we will see if Sony or Nikon has to make tradeoffs to get high res.... not sure they do.


    In the end, if the come out with a fully upgraded 5DMkIV, these niche cameras will likely be just that: niche
  • NikonsandVstromsNikonsandVstroms *and Olympus Boston, MARegistered Users Posts: 990 Major grins
    edited February 6, 2015
    David_S85 wrote: »
    What I'm reading so far isn't good for Canon. Even the Canon fan boys are speaking up. Same DR (so says Westfall), possibly more noise at similar ISO's. Same sensor tech as the 7DII but without dual pixel (or it is not enabled). Creative video capabilities have been removed. Mirror lockup with no first curtain shutter? Their Rebel line actually looks more advanced in many ways. Seems like a marketing rush job to counter the D810 and upcoming Sony A8 50MP or whatever. The more advanced Sony 50MP sensors (and higher DR) are about to be released on the street in a few short weeks. That might sting when measured back to Canon's.

    But, at the same time, more advanced mirror lock-up controls, tank-like construction, and time-lapse intervalometer modes for the stills to time lapse movie makers. The SD card slot drive finally moves up in spec to modern cards. So they've kinda caught up to Nikon in those departments. The ergonomics are at a stage where everything just fits the hand right and they're not changing that in the least. Look how they've turned the 7DII into a junior 5DIII, and there's still more models to come in this series later in the year.

    Nothing yet about this 5Ds or 5Dsr makes me want to even remotely part with my 5DIII. In fact, if they still can't move the DR up the scale, they'll be losing even more shooters to Nikon and Sony. And Nikon has the good lenses too. Sony - not so much.

    If that's true it wont be up to Nikon's DR level but it still might be good enough, if you're shooting Canon and doing alright currently yes MP & DR improvements would be great but even without the latter you're still getting a lot more resolution which would be huge for some shooters. If it acts just like a much bigger 7D mkII sensor it'll fill those niche groups that need resolution above all else at lower ISO's. For the higher ISO's it'll be interesting to see how it does in comparison to the other FF since 100% might be the same as the 7D mkII but you can reduce the image size a lot to get to a comparable resolution and then the 5Ds would look a lot nicer.

    As to Sony/Nikon they should be able to get to 50 MP without much of an issue in keeping their dynamic range. The D7100 which would be a generation behind it has 13.7 stops of it and if there's no other hurdle expanding this to FF than they'd keep it. The issue for that sensor would be noise, and specifically shadow noise.

    As someone who has gone from full frame back to a crop camera as my primary even if the 5Ds is in essence a big 7D mkII sensor I'd say that still holds lots of promise as long as you shoot within its envelope.
  • David_S85David_S85 Spotter of Dgrin Spam and Oddities ChicagolandAdministrators Posts: 12,796 moderator
    edited February 6, 2015
    I'm thinking the FF 50MP will be hard to shoot hand held without shake, no matter what Canon seems to have done to firm up the body (edit: <-- gee, that sounds like a dieting ad)

    Waiting for real life field reviews from people doing just that. I woke up thinking that going from 22 to 50 is really a pretty good deal, especially with the crop modes they offer -- all for about the same price now as when the 5DIII was announced two years ago.

    I'm left wondering, and I don't know the answer to this, is if hand holding becomes a vibration challenge at 50MP, do the crop modes offer better hand-hold-ability, or is it just as shake prone as shooting at FF? Not everyone uses IS lenses all the time. 135 f/2 portrait lens is an example.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • kdogkdog artistically challenged San Jose, CAAdministrators Posts: 11,661 moderator
    edited February 7, 2015
    David, given that the pixel density is the same as the 7DMKII, would the simple fact of having a wider field of them really change anything in regards to shake? Certainly in 1.6 crop mode, it should be identical to the 7DMKII.
  • David_S85David_S85 Spotter of Dgrin Spam and Oddities ChicagolandAdministrators Posts: 12,796 moderator
    edited February 7, 2015
    That was one thought I had, yes. I also keep thinking a one hundred dollar bill should be 100 times the area of a one dollar bill.

    I guess if you had only a 50 pixel sensor, camera movement would be less worrisome. But why does the middle of the sensor in crop mode not be the same for movement than a little farther out on the sensor (of the same pixel density)? I just can't wrap my head around that one.

    kdog wrote: »
    David, given that the pixel density is the same as the 7DMKII, would the simple fact of having a wider field of them really change anything in regards to shake? Certainly in 1.6 crop mode, it should be identical to the 7DMKII.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • JCJC Major grins Registered Users Posts: 768 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2015
    At least I won't be really sitting back in envy at another camera I can't afford. A built in intervalometer is nice, but plugin intervalometers are a decent work around. With windy landscapes you can't always just decrease the shutter speed too much, having better higher ISO is not entirely irrelevant for landscapes, and in the mountains, and the desert, better DR would be, basically, better. I was just shooting landscapes, right at dawn, with birds taking flight, wishing for a super camera that could handle that. These won't be it I guess.
    Yeah, if you recognize the avatar, new user name.
  • kdogkdog artistically challenged San Jose, CAAdministrators Posts: 11,661 moderator
    edited February 7, 2015
    David_S85 wrote: »
    But why does the middle of the sensor in crop mode not be the same for movement than a little farther out on the sensor (of the same pixel density)?
    Did someone say it wasn't?
    JC wrote: »
    having better higher ISO is not entirely irrelevant for landscapes
    Especially for starry night photos.
  • JCJC Major grins Registered Users Posts: 768 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2015
    kdog wrote: »
    Especially for starry night photos.

    Yeah that too. The dark area corduroy when I try to stretch moon light foregrounds a ways is a bit annoying on the mark ii.
    Yeah, if you recognize the avatar, new user name.
  • David_S85David_S85 Spotter of Dgrin Spam and Oddities ChicagolandAdministrators Posts: 12,796 moderator
    edited February 7, 2015
    kdog wrote: »
    Did someone say it wasn't?

    It was suggested that in crop mode the shots might be more hand holdable, or at least that's how I took it. I don't know if this is the case. The 7DII has exactly the same pixel density. I don't remember comments anywhere when that cam was released about stability matters. Furthermore, Canon didn't reinforce that body or dampen the mirror (it is smaller - might make a difference) to help with image shake.

    Medium format shooters talk about this a lot. I can imagine when the chat isn't about "why do you need that many pixels?" turning into "can one even take a picture with that many pixels without shake ruining the shot most of the time?"
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Super Moderators Posts: 22,325 moderator
    edited February 7, 2015
    Cropping, whether the result of the physical sensor size, a reduced active area of the sensor or in post-production in software, also reduces FOV. Reduced FOV tends to increase the effects of camera shake. (Longer focal length lenses also increase the effects of camera shake for much the same reason.)

    Higher pixel density tends to allow closer scrutiny of smaller areas of the image, making any camera shake more apparent at the pixel level. (Monitor size and monitor viewing distance, and print size and print viewing distance, will also impact the visible artifacts of camera shake.)

    Yes, the larger mirror size "and" the larger shutter size of a FF camera will have a greater affect on camera shake unless there is an attendant percentage increase in camera body mass, relative to the difference in mirror and shutter sizes.

    Mirror box construction and shutter box construction, and applicable technologies of those sub-systems, also impact both internal vibration extent and internal vibration duration. I believe that, in the Canon bodies, only the Canon "1" series bodies employ primary mirror latches and fine shutter control, both of which reduce internal vibrations' severity and duration. (It is my understanding that Nikon single-digit bodies employ similar technology.) That is not to say that the Canon non-"1" bodies lack internal vibration mitigations, only that the "1" series bodies employ the best and most effective of their technologies for internal vibration control.

    Concerns over a 50 megapixel imager from any manufacturer being problematic are probably premature. I recommend waiting until formal reviews demonstrate the cameras' properties before making firm conclusions. The Canon 50MP imager is a relatively modest increase over the Sony 36MP imager, and I don't remember reading of any dramatic increase from the Sony sensor in vibration problems, internal or external.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Super Moderators Posts: 22,325 moderator
    edited February 7, 2015
    David_S85 wrote: »
    ... Mirror lockup with no first curtain shutter? ...

    While there is no "Electronic" First Curtain Shutter with normal mirror lockup, it appears that you can get "Electronic" First Curtain Shutter using Live View mode (which also includes mirror lockup prior to image capture). Not perfect, but I use that method already (on older Canon model bodies) and it's not bad if you have a few extra batteries charged and ready. (Live View really sucks down batteries quickly.)
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • DavidTODavidTO Mod Emeritus Thousand Oaks, CARegistered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2015
    Yeah, for all the hype, it seems to me to be a a whole lot of meh. $1200 more than the D810, with worse dynamic range and low-light capabilities. The resolution is just showy bravado, but is too great a tradeoff, IMO. Same with the 11-24 f/4 vs. the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. I would gladly forsake the 11-13mm range for a brighter lens. The 14-24 is an AWESOME lens, and a high bar to meet.

    Add to all this that the combo of the Canon 5DSR and the 11-24mm lens is $2k more than the proven and much loved D810 and 14-24mm combo.

    (all this from a landscape photography perspective)
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft GWC for hire Portland.ME.USARegistered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2015
    David_s85, please post an example of where Canon's DR posed a problem for you.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • kdogkdog artistically challenged San Jose, CAAdministrators Posts: 11,661 moderator
    edited February 7, 2015
    David_s85, please post an example of where Canon's DR posed a problem for you.
    How about your own examples of your freestyle skiing shots where you blow out the backgrounds and bibs to get nicely illuminated faces?

    Pretty much any sunset/sunrise shot can benefit from wider dynamic range. Or a nighttime scene with the moon in it. These things are staple fare for landscape photographers.
  • David_S85David_S85 Spotter of Dgrin Spam and Oddities ChicagolandAdministrators Posts: 12,796 moderator
    edited February 7, 2015
    David_s85, please post an example of where Canon's DR posed a problem for you.

    Here's one. I'm not shooting into the sun, in fact, it is behind me and the building. I was trying to get an exposure that would capture both the sky (there is a blue sky with clouds) and the foreground subjects. A little too dark in the foreground - though that is easily fixable. The sky, however, is toast. Clicking the Linear view, there is some sky there, but the clouds are still blown out. I do realize that the clouds are front-lit, but that's what clouds do in the sky. A couple more stops of DR would probably have got it all in (yet with a little more work in post).

    i-dmc5kLX-X2.jpg


    And here is the same file with the EV reduced to -0.10, highlights are set to -5, and Linear is checked. There's the sky! But the clouds are still at 255. It just can't handle an exposure of medium low light foreground and sky at the same time, even if I shoot opposite the sun. I find that lacking.

    i-7R8sPcX-X2.jpg

    I could shoot all scenes with these not-so-tough conditions as HDR's. But I shouldn't have to now or in the near future. The sensor tech is mostly available, but Canon isn't using it. This was from a 5D3, made two years ago and shot last year. I can't change the sensor in that cam, but the replacement had better the heck be able to do shots like this in one click.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft GWC for hire Portland.ME.USARegistered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2015
    kdog wrote: »
    How about your own examples of your freestyle skiing shots where you blow out the backgrounds and bibs to get nicely illuminated faces?

    I don't see a problem there. Snow is white, the bibs are white, parts of those areas are going to appear white. And I think I've pulled a realistic amount of detail out of them anyway. Canon's highlight recovery doesn't seem to be the problem everyone is moaning about, and in my experience there is tons of room on the right side of the histogram. Sure there is less DR on the left side of the histogram, but I find that lifted shadows often look unnatural and HDRish. A few people really use all of Sony's DR well and tastefully, like Matthew Saville, but I think most people wouldn't even know what to do with the difference between a Sony sensor and a Canon sensor.

    7D2_4439-XL.jpg
    David_S85 wrote: »
    Here's one.

    David, your problem there is that you're using DPP3. It's not capable of exposing all of Canon's DR, ironically. DPP4 is a lot better, but I prefer Lightroom. I'd be interested to try that RAW if you want to send it to me. jack at jmphotocraft.com.

    But anyway, I really don't understand why Canon is repeating Nikon's mistake of offering the 5DS alongside the 5DSR.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • David_S85David_S85 Spotter of Dgrin Spam and Oddities ChicagolandAdministrators Posts: 12,796 moderator
    edited February 9, 2015
    Jack, when I have a more up to date computer and OS (hopefully, this summer), a trip to the Canon site to DL DPP4 will be the first thing I do, believe me. I do know there's more information in the files; the checkbox for Linear proves it. The debate is whether there's really enough there in the first place. I'm not giving up on Canon, but I am envious of what Sony can pull off years ahead of what Canon has.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • ian408ian408 More wag. Less Bark. Administrators Posts: 21,584 moderator
    edited February 9, 2015
    For all the hype, Canon sure is downplaying the two bodies by indirectly labeling it as more specialized. Which is to say if you pixel peep, get one. Otherwise, stick with the 5diii or 1dx.

    I do like the direction they're heading with metering, in-camera cropping, etc. and to me, the 5ds(r) seems more like what the auto industry calls a "test mule" for these features.
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft GWC for hire Portland.ME.USARegistered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2015
    In the highlights, I think there's enough there in the first place:

    As shot:
    i-VrNN9d3-XL.jpg

    Developed in Lightroom:
    i-N8XcMM5-XL.jpg

    Want to send me your raw file?
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • kdogkdog artistically challenged San Jose, CAAdministrators Posts: 11,661 moderator
    edited February 9, 2015
    I don't see a problem there.

    No, there's no problem there, Jack. I thought you had acknowledged some difficulty in capturing the range in that thread, but I looking back I see I was mistaken.

    Still, like I said, it's sunrises, sunsets and evening/night shots with the moon in it which are probably the most difficult cases for dynamic range. Those are the shots I'll routinely bracket and blend to get the kind of dynamic range that Nikon shooters can often get in a single shot. Andy, Marc, David Rosenthal and countless other landscape shooters have switched to Nikon and Sony for this reason. Whether the vast unwashed masses take advantage of that dynamic range means nothing to me as I don't speak for them. Speaking purely for myself, I know that I could use the extra dynamic range. YMMV of course.
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft GWC for hire Portland.ME.USARegistered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2015
    kdog wrote: »
    Still, like I said, it's sunrises, sunsets and evening/night shots with the moon in it which are probably the most difficult cases for dynamic range. Those are the shots I'll routinely bracket and blend to get the kind of dynamic range that Nikon shooters can often get in a single shot. Andy, Marc, David Rosenthal and countless other landscape shooters have switched to Nikon and Sony for this reason. Whether the vast unwashed masses take advantage of that dynamic range means nothing to me as I don't speak for them. Speaking purely for myself, I know that I could use the extra dynamic range. YMMV of course.

    Sure, I'd just like to see an example of yours.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • kdogkdog artistically challenged San Jose, CAAdministrators Posts: 11,661 moderator
    edited February 9, 2015
    Sure, I'd just like to see an example of yours.
    Sure, here you go.

    Moonrise over Fisher Towers, Moab, Utah. This is exactly one of the cases I mentioned.

    i-bZGs5Zw-X2.jpg
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft GWC for hire Portland.ME.USARegistered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2015
    Umm, ok, can I see your attempted rescue of whatever else is supposed to be in that picture? Or is it supposed to be all black except for the moon?
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • kdogkdog artistically challenged San Jose, CAAdministrators Posts: 11,661 moderator
    edited February 9, 2015
    Umm, ok, can I see your attempted rescue of whatever else is supposed to be in that picture? Or is it supposed to be all black except for the moon?
    No rescue, Jack. That was completely flat-lined on the raw converter. It was exposed for the moon.

    Here's the same exact composition that I shot directly afterward exposed for the rocks.
    i-CvQtM6j-L.jpg

    As you can see, the moon is hopelessly blown. Brightening the dark areas of the first shot turns it into a grainy mess. My original intention was to blend these two, although honestly the comp really didn't grab me so I never bothered.

    Now I can't say for sure whether a newer Nikon can capture that range either without artifacts. But they have a much wider DR than Canon does at this point, so it would defintely be better.
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft GWC for hire Portland.ME.USARegistered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2015
    Well I'm not surprised the moon is hopelessly blown, it is illuminated by direct sunlight, while the rest of your scene is illuminated by moonlight or dusk. I'd be extremely surprised if any Sony sensor could do what you want here, seems like an unreasonable expectation. So I'm still waiting for a real example... :)
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Sign In or Register to comment.