June 22, 2018, 03:31:15 AM

Author Topic: 5DSR II?  (Read 24664 times)

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3560
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2018, 05:13:12 PM »
You will be disappointed, so get used to the idea because they are not designing the camera just for you.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2018, 05:13:12 PM »

Mancubus

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #46 on: March 14, 2018, 02:41:11 AM »
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

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2112
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #47 on: March 14, 2018, 08:32:03 AM »


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

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

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3589
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #48 on: March 14, 2018, 09:04:32 AM »
I want:
- no AA filter

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.

+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

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3423
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #49 on: March 14, 2018, 09:35:37 AM »
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

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 152
  • ---
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #50 on: March 14, 2018, 11:32:46 AM »
...

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.

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

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #51 on: March 14, 2018, 03:57:40 PM »
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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #51 on: March 14, 2018, 03:57:40 PM »

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3560
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #52 on: March 14, 2018, 06:54:02 PM »
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.

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.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

scyrene

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2036
    • My Flickr feed
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #53 on: March 14, 2018, 07:33:11 PM »
I want:
- no AA filter

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.

+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.

Same.
Current equipment: 5Ds, 5D mark III, 50D, 24-105L, MP-E, 100L macro, 500L IS II; 1.4xIII + 2x III extenders; 600EX-RT.
Former equipment includes: 300D; EOS-M, EF-M 18-55, Samyang 14mm f/2.8, EF 35 f/2 IS, 70-200L f/4 non-IS and f/2.8L IS II, 85L II, Sigma 180 macro, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

reef58

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #54 on: March 14, 2018, 07:55:03 PM »
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.

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

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3560
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #55 on: March 15, 2018, 06:23:02 AM »
I want:
- no AA filter

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.

+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.

Same.

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.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

Orangutan

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2112
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #56 on: March 15, 2018, 09:06:28 AM »
I want:
- no AA filter

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.

+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.

Same.

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.
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

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3589
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #57 on: March 15, 2018, 09:29:16 AM »
I want:
- no AA filter

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.

+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.

Same.

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.
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.

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
« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 09:32:37 AM by Sporgon »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #57 on: March 15, 2018, 09:29:16 AM »

lexaclarke

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #58 on: March 15, 2018, 10:46:46 AM »
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

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3423
Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #59 on: March 15, 2018, 02:06:17 PM »
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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5DSR II?
« Reply #59 on: March 15, 2018, 02:06:17 PM »