Because I like choice and because I have EF-lenses built and optimised for DSLR use.Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirrorless with about the same feature set and an updated sensor? Wouldn’t that be better?
Upvote
0
Because I like choice and because I have EF-lenses built and optimised for DSLR use.Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirrorless with about the same feature set and an updated sensor? Wouldn’t that be better?
Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirror only 5DsRII for starters? After a few years when they solve any problems found in EOS R (even if these are only handling related) they could also introduce a higher mpixel mirrorless body. Wouldn't that be better?Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirrorless with about the same feature set and an updated sensor? Wouldn’t that be better?
Why would it be better ? I'm curious as to why you think this would be the case.Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirrorless with about the same feature set and an updated sensor? Wouldn’t that be better?
I don’t think that’s exactly what he’s saying. He thinks the sensor can be too sharp. There’s a difference between critical sharpness in-camera, without manipulation, and post sharpness, using compute effects to accomplish the same thing. I’d much rather have it in the camera, off the sensor, than have to bring it back later. As far as I know, all RAW converters apply that small amount of sharpness to counteract the antialiasing filter over the sensor. No filter, and higher off the sensor sharpness means no need for that automatically applied sharpness correction.
The 5DSr should ideally be used with a tripod. if you can make that concession 100% of the time, god bless you.
My point regarding the totally exciting, crisp and exciting look of the image coming from the X-T2 is not a sole observation of mine, but of many other thousands of photographers.
As far as the comment about being "too sharp", I have zero idea what this means. Too sharp optically does NOT exist. Too sharp in rendering software, does.
I assume he is saying the 5DSR is best used on a tripod and with this I would agree.Nonsense. It doesn't break the laws of physics. A high enough shutter speed for conditions (subject motion; hand shake; IS) is a high enough shutter speed. I have no problem getting sharp images hand held even at higher ISOs. In fact, I think what the 5Ds can do hand held at ISO 3200 impresses me even more than what it can do tripod mounted at ISO 100 because I didn't expect the former.
Fuji has a CFA arrangement that is in some ways superior to Bayer, and they are possibly the best company out there when it comes to in camera rendering and ooc quality. I have a great deal of respect for their system and if crop mirrorless was going to be my primary system, it would be Fuji. A 50mp 5Ds/5DsR will still win the sharpness contest every time all other factors being equal. That's not to say the X-T2 is not sharp or sharp enough. But the 5Ds/5DsR image will be sharp at sizes where the X-T2 image is not.
Too sharp optically can exist with digital because of aliasing effects near the Nyquist limit. AA filters are about more than just moire.
For me the 5DSR works best in ideal conditions and low ISO. I don't like it beyond 1600 ISO and try to keep it below that.
Why would it matter if they instead offer a mirrorless with about the same feature set and an updated sensor? Wouldn’t that be better?
Nonsense. It doesn't break the laws of physics. A high enough shutter speed for conditions (subject motion; hand shake; IS) is a high enough shutter speed. I have no problem getting sharp images hand held even at higher ISOs. In fact, I think what the 5Ds can do hand held at ISO 3200 impresses me even more than what it can do tripod mounted at ISO 100 because I didn't expect the former.
Fuji has a CFA arrangement that is in some ways superior to Bayer, and they are possibly the best company out there when it comes to in camera rendering and ooc quality. I have a great deal of respect for their system and if crop mirrorless was going to be my primary system, it would be Fuji. A 50mp 5Ds/5DsR will still win the sharpness contest every time all other factors being equal. That's not to say the X-T2 is not sharp or sharp enough. But the 5Ds/5DsR image will be sharp at sizes where the X-T2 image is not.
Too sharp optically can exist with digital because of aliasing effects near the Nyquist limit. AA filters are about more than just moire.
If you had better field-craft, you would hand the camera over to the bird and convince him to do a selfie. No need to crop...Actually I have to crop at 100% sometimes when some birds do not cooperate (or to cover for my lack of experience as I am sure some EOS R lovers would say / have said).
When you shoot at bright sunlight or even a little less than optimal conditions and you keep ISO reasonably low it seems you can crop at 100% with EOS 5DsR and be satisfied with the results. This makes it a satisfying birding camera for me.
If you had better field-craft, you would hand the camera over to the bird and convince him to do a selfie. No need to crop...
All cameras work best in ideal conditions and low iso, even the 5DIV. Here are two images I have posted previously that show the 5DSR is a capable camera in low light and high iso. This bell bird (in Tiritiri in New Zealand) was hidden under the green canopy with light filtering through. I took a photo from one side with a 5DIV + 400mm DO II at f/4, 1/200s and iso6400, and my wife with a 5DSR, 100-400mm II, f/5.6, 1/200 and iso6400 from the other side (top image). The 5DSR maxed out at 6400 and I pushed hers through +1.56ev in DxO PL after prime noise reduction, so it was effectively at iso19000 (bottom image). Not much to choose between them. Both were hand held. There is a lot of nonsense spouted about the 5DSR by those who have never used them or don't know how to get the best out of them without torturing yourself with tripods etc. The time I prefer the 5DIV is when I need snappier focussing otherwise I go to the 5DSR.I assume he is saying the 5DSR is best used on a tripod and with this I would agree.
For me the 5DSR works best in ideal conditions and low ISO. I don't like it beyond 1600 ISO and try to keep it below that.
I find the 5D IV a much better all-round camera.
There is alot of slowness in the 5DSR. The file size slows the camera down.
The 5D IV Is a much snappier camera.
What? I’ve examined thousands of images from digital sources in my lab over the years, and have never seen that problem.
Yes, I think it would. No doubt that ML/RF lenses will be the future.
If you shoot with a camera with AA filter, then the effect is reduced or removed.
"Too sharp" does exist because the pixels are laid out in grid pattern and the pixel density is still not high enough to hide the unnatural pattern.
I had a commercial lab. More than a few were in medium format. In fact I used to beta test Leaf backs and software. We also received scanning back files. The only thing an antialiasing filter really does is to help prevent moire.
Because I like choice and because I have EF-lenses built and optimised for DSLR use.