Your 5DSR and R5 behave differently from mine. The 5DSR gave me great results in terms of sharp images and detail, the best I had until then, but the R5 is slightly better. This borne out by measurements -
I deliberately used it for a waterfall shot, where I wanted motion blur, just to see what happened.
I would easily concede that the R5 with the RF 50mm f/1.2 (at f/4) may be sharper than the 5DSR with the EF 35mm f/2 IS (at f/4) and when you read the test report carefully, that is the logical conclusion. The EF 35mm f/2 IS is a remarkable lens (I have one), but it is no match for the RF 50 and certainly not for the 85. The tester openly stated that he had the best result with the native RF lens and that would be the 50. In my previous comment, I added the qualification "with the same lens", and it has been my experience that the 5DSR offers a bit more detail in that scenario (at least to my eye), but the difference is slight and there is no easy way to test, because in many scenes, aliasing will overwhelm the useful detail and further confuse the evaluation. BTW, the first test done with OOC JPEGs is not particularly useful in evaluating the sensor since Canon's JPEG engine has been constantly improving over the years.
have my doubts about the longevity of VR. It is about the 6th attempt at 3D that has been tried in my memory and all the others failed in the end for essentially the same reason. Two image 3D is an attempt to fool the eye into seeing an actual 3D image, but the screen (and hence the nominal focus point for the eye) is in a fixed position. The result is that whenever the image is focused on a point in front of or behind the screen, the phase information in the dual image presentation causes the eye/brain to try to focus on that point, but the screen doesn't move, so now the whole image is out of focus and the result is a headache. The problem is mitigated somewhat by brighter screens that cause the eye to have more depth of field, but the basic problem remains and my sense is that we are looking at yet another passing fad. Good to remember that our eyes focus exactly like a PDAF camera.
Certainly you must realize that for lots of situations (birds and wildlife come immediately to mind) the subject is very small in your image despite shooting at the maximum focal length. Let me know when Canon releases that 2000mm or 2500mm focal length lens, but until then, I will need to crop. These Sandhill Cranes were just over a half mile away. I think I was using the correct focal length!! (400mm lens with 2x TC using a MFT camera (with 2x crop factor). And I still had to crop.
I had a bigger subject — an island— but it was ~90 km away. I may have been using the wrong focal length, this was with the RF 100-400mm on a FF camera. I do have a 600/4 and 2x TC, but I did not bring either of them to Italy and even if I had, I certainly would not have hiked up Mt. Etna with the 600/4.
This is a great example of the benefit of that lens. I know it's subjective, but it's difficult for me to think a wider aperture would have benefited the photo. How much did the altitude affected you? Anyway, it's beautiful.
Thanks!
1000 isn't even bad with film, although as far as I know, you'd have to either use 800 for color or choose between 400 and 3200 for black & white. Strange that not enough people wanted 1600 for anyone to continue with it... Must be a conspiracy!
No problem. Camera shake results from the sensor moving while the picture is taken. The amount of blur is a result of the distance the plane/angle of the sensor is moved during exposure. This is a simple geometrical function. The distance of movement to your sensor that induces motion blur does not change regardless if your camera has 1,000 or 100 mill pixels - the only factor is the distance the sensor moves while the picture is taken. Imaging holding a camera and tilting it 5 degrees down. No matter the size of your sensor, the light hitting that sensor will move precisely 5 degrees. So the blur from hand holding a low and high MPIX camera is always exactly the same. When I said it may be less with a high MPIX camera its because several high-MPIX DSLR-cameras have special dampened motors to reduce motion blur resulting from mirror slap.
You agree then that when the 5DSR and R5 are tested for sharpness that is independent of the lens then the R5 just wins out. I did with the 5DSR have Moire occasionally spoiling details on birds feathers, especially Kingfishers tails for example, but not once has Moire interfered with the R5 output for me.
Canon introduced IBIS with the R5 and R6 that launched simultaneously with 45 and 20 MP sensors, respectively. They promote 8-stops of coordinated IS for both cameras, as well as for the 24 MP R3 and R6II.
Your reading comprehension is once again lacking - and I already kindly asked you to not comment on my posts - so not sure why you insist. The part you apparently missed this time around:
An insult followed by a reminder of your kindness? That’s a rather (oxy)moronic statement. Regardless, I will reply when and to whom I choose. If that bothers you, to be blunt…too bad. Pro tip: if not receiving a response is your goal, insulting someone is a poor way to accomplish it.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, my mistake. I assumed you meant mirrorless and were referring to IBIS. In the context of a current discussion, there are no ‘high MP DSLRs’. Personally, even historically I don’t recall Canon or Nikon promoting dampened mirror motors at all, and though Canon did mention the IS in some supertele lenses is designed to reduce the effect of mirror slap at long focal lengths, I wouldn’t call it ’promoting’.
Logical, since that was Canon's own high MP DSLR. I don't recall them making a big deal about it, though, and that sort of makes sense. Never a good idea to highlight a previous problem with your technology unless you're planning to fix it across the board. They can tout the readout speed of the stacked sensor in the R3, but not by saying that's solution for the 'problem' of the slow readout speed of other MILCs.
For very sharp edges, I tend to rely on primes, never on ultra-wide zooms.You are right. The 10-20 won't be all that rare for those of us who can afford a 100 MP body in the first place
