Canon TS-E lenses at 187MP on the Panasonic S1R [Review]

[keithcooper]

I've just finished a lengthy review of the Panasonic S1R, especially looking at using it with Canon lenses.

Panasonic Lumix S1R review. Using the 47MP full frame mirrorless camera

Panasonic Lumix S1R review. Using the 47MP full frame mirrorless camera with special emphasis on the 187MP multi-shot high resolution mode

www.northlight-images.co.uk

My TS-E17 and 24 work really well particularly in the 187MP multi-shot mode

I've attached a 250MP shot (shift/stitched) at a quarter full res. and detail showing what more the 187MP mode gets over 47MP (and my 5Ds)

I really liked the S1R, and it's given me some more clarity on what I'd like to see in any mirrorless replacement for my 5Ds:

• The S1R sensor stabilisation is just great with all the Canon lenses I tried
• The S1R 187MP multishot mode works a treat with my TS-E lenses, but it needs to be able to fire a flash for individual images.
• I’d like to see an EVF as good as the 5.7Mdot one in the S1R
• On the fly image magnification for manual focus and more adjustable focus peaking
• I don’t want to see the sensor open to the world when I swap lenses (The S1R collects dust like my old 1Ds)
• I want a lot more customisation options than I get on the EOS RP (much as I like it)
• The S1R does video – I never tried it, just make sure that I can always remap the video record button to something useful

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

Thanks very much for this comprehensive review from the perspective of a daily Canon user. I'm pleased to know that my Canon gear would transition to the Panasonic's better than I expected.

I'd say that the S1's have set the mark for Canon. It's reasonable to expect a RF camera with similar capabilities from Canon. It's good to know that my EF glass could find a home if they don't.

Any chance FujiFilm will lend you a GFX 100? I'm curious regarding how well Canon EF tilt/shift lenses cover the larger sensor. I suppose financially that would make even less sense than the S1R.

I hear you about how tiresome the DR discussions can be but I'm guessing you are going to miss being able to pull those shadows. It's hard to give that up.

 

[keithcooper]

Thanks!

The GFX100 is definitely on my list - you're quite right about the business/financial side though :-(

I'm sure some will find justification, but as you go beyond 50MP the number of clients who would appreciate the difference drops off, even in my architectural work. Sure, it's nice to have such huge images, but the number of photographers making a profit from more resolution dwindles, whatever justifications may be rustled up to justify the purchase ;-)

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

Ultimately it comes down to pleasing the person who approves the art and cuts the check. My motto is "try not to give them any more than you have too, but never give them less". Having said that, I've found that if there is 1 person in 1000 that can see the flaws in your work, that 1/1000 person will end up being responsible for approving the art.

I've worked with art directors who spec'd work far beyond what any reasonable person would require. It's a personality driven business so you do what you need to do to make the customer happy. If that means purchasing a GFX 100, even though an RP could do the job just fine, that's what you do if it brings in the work.

As I'm sure you know, there are always consideration beyond what you can see in the final print. Just adding this to give a frame of reference for those who might not understand why some photographers invest in high end gear when there isn't an obvious benefit.

edited for clarity.

 

[keithcooper]

Very true - unfortunately I still don't have 10k spare in the business... :-(

There comes a time where it truly is an 'investment' but that term is very widely abused, especially by salespeople and as an excuse to get new toys ;-)

That said I do keep an eye on the people signing the checks to see if we're losing out to 'spurious tech' ;-)

 

[privatebydesign]

Kieth, as always a great article especially for the more technical or detail orientated readers.

Did you try to compare the in built multi shot 187mp mode to a super resolution technique for averaging multiple exposures from your 5Ds?

 

[keithcooper]

Thanks - no, I've never done that with the 5Ds - seems a little hit and miss?

 

[privatebydesign]

It can be, but the truth is the only real difference is the time between actual captures, in theory the color sampling could be higher/better with the in camera process but I’d have to see that in practice to believe the theoretical advantage would be visible.

You always struck me as a pragmatic and practical guy, the number of times you can shift and stitch outweighs the cost and need for a larger sensor, that kind of thing. If there are occasions when you really want to print big then there are ways of achieving very similar results to the Panasonic with your 5Ds. Each of us are the only ones who can asses the cost/value/need equation for our individual personal situations.

I liken image averaging to HDR techniques, just another tool to get me what I need on occasions.

 

[LDS]

that 1/1000 person will end up being responsible for approving the art

There's a reason usually why she/he got that job... and like in any other job if you like it and you're good at it you'll keep on at getting better - and requiring the same from others.

 

[Frodo]

Thanks for another of your pragmatic reviews, Keith.
Frankly, I don't see a huge difference between the two crops - the biggest difference is in brightness.
The GFX100 is about four times the price of an EOS 5DsR here in New Zealand. Assuming everything is equal, a doubling of pixels increases the linear size of a print by just 1.4x. I printed a 5DsR image over a metre wide the other day and clearly could have gone much bigger. I find it hard to justify going to more than 50MP for the few times when I really need more resolution when stitching would not suffice. I think fullframe is the sweet spot between resolution, price, size and handling. I hope Canon focuses on better pixels (e.g. dynamic range) rather than more for the 5DsR replacement.

 

[keithcooper]

Thanks for another of your pragmatic reviews, Keith.
Frankly, I don't see a huge difference between the two crops - the biggest difference is in brightness.
The GFX100 is about four times the price of an EOS 5DsR here in New Zealand. Assuming everything is equal, a doubling of pixels increases the linear size of a print by just 1.4x. I printed a 5DsR image over a metre wide the other day and clearly could have gone much bigger. I find it hard to justify going to more than 50MP for the few times when I really need more resolution when stitching would not suffice. I think fullframe is the sweet spot between resolution, price, size and handling. I hope Canon focuses on better pixels (e.g. dynamic range) rather than more for the 5DsR replacement.

Thanks

Do look at the crops at full size - there is considerably more detail in the high res version. The detail for example in the wheels of the vehicles and the windows of the building is distinctly different - pretty much what I'd expect to see given the difference in resolution.

Brightness is pretty irrelevant here - the clouds were moving and the shots were taken a short time apart ;-)

I agree that the extra resolution may not actually be that relevant in some instances, but it is definitely there if you need it...

Personally I'll take a modest bump in pixels for my mirrorless 5Ds replacement, but I'd like a Canon version of the multishot please, since there are times when I'd like the option of more MP in the frame. I note that a 70MP sensor would give 280MP for multi-shot ;-)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Looking at the past, I can say that higher resolutions of digital images were worth it. Digital cameras for consumers started at about 200K, and 1 MP was high Res, but 5 or even 6 mp was available for $35,000. When 5 or 6 was common, 10 or 12 mp was ultra high and, looking back, those images are still good today at normal magnifications.

Haze in a landscape image probably limits resolution more than a sensor, so the ability to actually get all that resolution in a landscape image requires a lot of patience and talent.

The sensor shift tech would be useful as another tool to be used where possible and worth the effort. 20 years from now, those super high resolution images will look primitive.

 

[Pape]

20 year more and you may be able even take sport pics with sensor shift ,computers gets faster and faster.
Makes camera tech cheap ,all you need is 50mm object and take huge crop.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for the thoughtful review. Interesting about the dust problems.