Is the Canon EOS 5DS series to be replaced by a mirrorless camera? [CR1]

Nov 8, 2011
3,792
159
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?

And, as Maiaibing says we have many EF lenses and maybe we would like to put them to our camera without adaptors. For myself think like 400 or 500mm lenses with or without Teleconverter.
 
Jul 26, 2011
941
84
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 problem is that AA filters are about more than preventing moire. They also prevent subtle aliasing at high contrast edge transitions. In some ooc examples, especially compared to strong AA filter cameras, a camera without an AA filter can look really good. In others it comes off as too harsh, almost as if you over sharpened in post even though it's ooc.

In the specific case of the 5Ds and 5DsR I see very little difference either way. Assuming optimum conditions (lens; aperture; technique; subject movement) 5Ds RAWs are not soft ooc. It has a weak AA filter which I like. My preference is: Weak AA > No AA > Strong AA.

And 5DsR images are not that harsh, though it can still get ugly on high contrast detail near extinction resolution. But it's not as dramatic as, say, 24mp AA vs. 24mp without AA.

Canon is very strong in wedding and fashion. I'm guessing that plays into the fact that they continue to ship with AA filters. I honestly hope they continue to offer the choice in the future.
 
Jul 26, 2011
941
84
The 5DSr should ideally be used with a tripod. if you can make that concession 100% of the time, god bless you.
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.

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.
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.

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.
Too sharp optically can exist with digital because of aliasing effects near the Nyquist limit. AA filters are about more than just moire.
 
Mar 22, 2012
889
26
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.
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.
 
Jul 26, 2011
941
84
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.
So many reviewers expressed the same opinion at launch, that the 5Ds/sr were "not high ISO cameras." Yet in every comparison I've done it has held its own. At equal view size 5Ds/sr noise is similar to the 5D IV but the 5Ds/sr are sharper ooc. Color splotching is a little higher but that disappears completely with a little color NR.

I'll note that Imaging Resource, in their print evaluation test, ranked the 5Ds/sr very highly at higher ISOs. They even expressed their surprise at how good it was because they assumed it would not be. Is the difference of opinion literally down to pixel peeping? Comparing two cameras at 100% (5Ds magnified more) rather than equal view size?

I would rank ISOs 1600 and 3200 as phenomenal. One of my favorite 5Ds shots so far is a wedding shot at ISO 1600, cropped to about 28mp and printed 16x20. It's almost too sharp and detailed and this was a young couple. There's no noise or grain to speak of in print. It would stroke my ego to believe it's my amazing post processing skills, but the RAWs in image comparison tools like the one at dpreview don't need any processing to hold their own.
 
May 4, 2011
935
62
Shot the 5DSR recently in low-light - I was shooting with the 85mm at 1.4 after sunset at ISO 6400. I was a bit surprised at how good it actually was. It is better than my M6, actually! That put things in perspective for me. Having said all that, though, I find that the noise does not clean up as nicely (compared to, say, the 5D4), and sometimes you get "banding" patterns, particularly if you have to push the file in post. That is countered, though, by noticeably more detail in many cases.

The 5DS/85 1.4 combo may be my new favorite. In good light, images need practically no PP at all, it is that good
 
Last edited:

Chris_BC

I'm New Here
Jul 28, 2016
17
11
AZ
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?
Absolutely not! Do you have dainty hands and/or weak arms? Mirrorless only offers smaller size and lighter weight. If you're worried about vibrations from the mirror there is the mirror lock up option already in place. (And in many if not most instances that tiny bit of vibration makes no noticeable difference even if you don't use the lock up.)

Conceivably in the future processing power will be such that 60 to 100 MP images can be done at 20 to 30 FPS or more such that a mechanical mirror would be more of a limiting factor, but existing DSLRs also already have various live view shooting modes with and without AF before every shot. So again we're back to only size and weight, as you lose the optical view finder and you lose a proper sized grip and body.

See my earlier comment on this topic.
 

Chris_BC

I'm New Here
Jul 28, 2016
17
11
AZ
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.

Like for the first paragraph. Tell me about or show us all examples of your claim in the last 2 sentences. Also tell me what you're looking at your images on and what zoom level. I have a 43 inch 4K Philips monitor, and I don't see any problems with my 5DsR images, even after some modest sharpening.

No I don't pixel peep at 100% to see the quality of my images, as that's about like sampling audio containing 20 KHz tones at 20 KHz, and expecting to hear the 20 KHz tones on playback of your digital recording. There is a reason the audio CD format was developed with 44.1 KHz sampling. That same idea tells you 50% is the maximum size you should view images to assess their quality.
 
Nov 8, 2011
3,792
159
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.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,291
66
S Florida
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...
 
Aug 16, 2012
4,241
464
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.
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.
bellbird_male_2B4A8000_DxO_CRiso6400.jpg
bellbird_male_3Q7A8969DxO_bellbirdmale_CRiso6400+1.56ev.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nov 2, 2016
235
66
Yes, I think it would. No doubt that ML/RF lenses will be the future.
Exactly. It seems that it really the best of both worlds. The ability to use what may be the best overall line of high quality lenses for DSLRs, and the ability to use what will be one of the best lines of FF mirrorless lenses arriving over the next few years.
 
Nov 2, 2016
235
66
If you shoot with a camera with AA filter, then the effect is reduced or removed. :)
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.
 
Apr 3, 2018
149
55
Calgary
"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.
That is why we have moire... the pixels are laid out in a grid pattern and the pixel density is not high enough. And that is what an anti-aliasing filter does, it unsharpens an image. Did you take comparative shots with and without AA filter to compare?
 
Last edited:
Nov 2, 2016
235
66
Because I like choice and because I have EF-lenses built and optimised for DSLR use.
So? Companies should end progress because some don’t want to move forwards? Those lenses will work just fine on the mirrorless cameras. That’s the point to the way the new mount and adapters were designed. Those lenses were optimized for any Canon mount that will accept them. They should work just as well on this as on a DSLR.
 
Likes: ScottO