2nd body, conflicted 5DS vs 5D4

[Ruined]

I would go for the 5DIV:

1. Dual pixel AF makes the camera much more versatile if viewfinder shooting is difficult. Face tracking makes shooting at large apertures easier.
2. Dynamic range.
3. ISO
4. GPS and Wifi
5.smaller and more manageable files for editing and storage. 30 megapixels are plenty for most scenarios.

So here is my issue:
1. Would never use.
2. This I consider an advantage I would use for 5DIV
3. I never use ISO over 6400 because it looks terrible IMO.
4. Would never use either.
5. Not a concern at all.

For my use case so far DR is the only significant advantage I am coming up with, but it is offset by the resolution loss

 

[Larsskv]

So here is my issue:
1. Would never use.
2. This I consider an advantage I would use for 5DIV
3. I never use ISO over 6400 because it looks terrible IMO.
4. Would never use either.
5. Not a concern at all.

For my use case so far DR is the only significant advantage I am coming up with, but it is offset by the resolution loss

You know which camera you want. Issue solved.

 

[Ruined]

You know which camera you want. Issue solved.

Yeah I think I do. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

 

[Treyarnon]

So then question#2 would be , worth getting a refurb 5Ds as an alternative with the AA filter and save $500, or get another new 5DsR ? I guess this is something only I can answer, but 5DsR realistically may be my only choice anyway since 5Ds is out of production and unavailable for order everywhere.

Also I wonder how much of the look I am liking is due to the lack of AA filter vs 50MP?

Finally worth mentioning in your scenario I think an easier decision as the r5 can take over many of the 5d4 "versatility" duties if you unexpectedly needed them. So the question would be, if you hypothetically only had a 5DsR and had to buy a 2nd body would it be the 5Ds, 5DsR, or the 5D4 (taking the r5 out of equation).

Speaking as someone who opted for the 5Ds over the 5DsR, for cost savings - I did a lot of pixel peeping comparing example images, and my conclusion was that I could not determine any extra detail from the 5DsR (at 100%). The 5DsR shots were a tiny bit sharper than the 5Ds, but I figured that a bit more sharpening in post would solve this.

Speaking as a 5Ds owner - this camera is never wanting for detail!


Second question -> Why would you need a second 5Ds? If you are going to inverst in a second body, then why not go for one which will offerer some different specalisations to compliment the main body?

 

[Sporgon]

Speaking as someone who opted for the 5Ds over the 5DsR, for cost savings - I did a lot of pixel peeping comparing example images, and my conclusion was that I could not determine any extra detail from the 5DsR (at 100%). The 5DsR shots were a tiny bit sharper than the 5Ds, but I figured that a bit more sharpening in post would solve this.

Speaking as a 5Ds owner - this camera is never wanting for detail!


Second question -> Why would you need a second 5Ds? If you are going to inverst in a second body, then why not go for one which will offerer some different specalisations to compliment the main body?

When I changed from 5DII to 5DS I compared both that and the R side by side, and I agree with you 100%. IMO it's a mistake to compare the 5DIV to the 5DSR and then from the IV data try and interpolate what you think the 'sharpness' of the 5DS would look like, because the AA filter on the 5DS is much weaker than that on the 5DIV. To match the sharpness of the S to the SR I found (using PS USM) to be in the region of 80% of 1 pixel, which is minuscule sharpening. Also the fact that the 5DSR does have the same AA filter as the 5DS but 'cancels it out' by passing through another reversing filter would rather suggest that if it's possible to reverse the effect of the AA filter you aren't going to be able to recover more detail than it allowed to pass through ! Ergo a minute amount of USM does the same thing.

Also the 5DS is very sharp in it's own right, and shot noise (photon noise)can become quite evident. I presume that this is because in the raw file there really is no noise reduction if you switch it off in the raw converter. This doesn't appear to be the case in say the Nikon Z files, which are suspiciously lacking in shot noise, yet according to Bill Claff of photons to photos there isn't any noise reaction applied either......compare some of the test comparison shots that some websites have and the Canon is definitely a little more defined. Odd. I'd love someone to explain that one to me.

When it comes to a second body, IMO the best one is somewhat genre specific. For weddings / social events I'd always go for two identical bodies as you're justing both equally together.

Another interesting thing, at least here in the UK, is that although the Nikon D800e held its premium on the used market over the D800, this isn't the case with the 5DS / R, where here the 5DS can actually be more expensive used.

 

[Fischer]

Recently I got the 5DsR for $1499 deal from B&H. I got it because I wanted an upgrade for my 6D. I thought the 6D's 20MP count was more than enough, but wow the amount of detail in the 5DsR is just insane! Even with my less sharp lenses, the pixel structure is so much finer and more natural. Reminds me of the difference of seeing film grain on a 4K movie vs a 1080p movie.

So, I wanted to get a 2nd 5D body and now I am conflicted. Originally I was going to wait until the 5D4 dropped in price during the winter, but now after seeing 50MP I'm not sure I want 30MP. I could either get another 5DsR for $1499, or wait for a Canon refurb sale on 5Ds (non-R) for $1039. Or likely the 5D4 will be $1999 in the winter.

I only shoot stills, so video performance not important. Mostly do portrait and landscape but I liked the 5D4 for its versatility. But I am not sure the few more AF points and couple of extra fps is worth losing 20MP. What do others who have owned both think?

Very little you cannot do - photography wise - with the 5DS/R that you can do with the 5DIV. And there is a visible difference if you like the extra pixels. Video is where the 5DS/R really suffers compared to the 5DIV.

 

[AlanF]

When I changed from 5DII to 5DS I compared both that and the R side by side, and I agree with you 100%. IMO it's a mistake to compare the 5DIV to the 5DSR and then from the IV data try and interpolate what you think the 'sharpness' of the 5DS would look like, because the AA filter on the 5DS is much weaker than that on the 5DIV. To match the sharpness of the S to the SR I found (using PS USM) to be in the region of 80% of 1 pixel, which is minuscule sharpening. Also the fact that the 5DSR does have the same AA filter as the 5DS but 'cancels it out' by passing through another reversing filter would rather suggest that if it's possible to reverse the effect of the AA filter you aren't going to be able to recover more detail than it allowed to pass through ! Ergo a minute amount of USM does the same thing.

Also the 5DS is very sharp in it's own right, and shot noise (photon noise)can become quite evident. I presume that this is because in the raw file there really is no noise reduction if you switch it off in the raw converter. This doesn't appear to be the case in say the Nikon Z files, which are suspiciously lacking in shot noise, yet according to Bill Claff of photons to photos there isn't any noise reaction applied either......compare some of the test comparison shots that some websites have and the Canon is definitely a little more defined. Odd. I'd love someone to explain that one to me.

When it comes to a second body, IMO the best one is somewhat genre specific. For weddings / social events I'd always go for two identical bodies as you're justing both equally together.

Another interesting thing, at least here in the UK, is that although the Nikon D800e held its premium on the used market over the D800, this isn't the case with the 5DS / R, where here the 5DS can actually be more expensive used.

There is much debate on forums whether the 5DSR is sharper than the 5DS. There is, however, a site that actually measures the resolution of sensors, optyczne.pl, the mother site of lenstip - one of my favourite sites. The 5DSR sensor out resolves the 5DS ( MTF vs frequency for the 5DS RAW is at the bottom and the 5DSR RAW in the middle, and jpegs at the top).
https://www.optyczne.pl/312.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5Ds__R_Rozdzielczość.html

Test Canon EOS 5Ds - Rozdzielczość - Test aparatu

Test aparatu Canon EOS 5Ds - Rozdzielczość ...

www.optyczne.pl

 

[Sporgon]

As the two above the 5DS don’t have AA filters and the top one has it ‘cancelled’ that’s what I’d expect to see. I think the 5Dsr with its ‘cancelled’ filter is interesting here though. You only have to look at files taken on a camera with no AA filter to see that they are still not critically ‘sharp’ when compared to those that have had appropriate and subtle sharpening applied. The 5Dsr with its cancelled out AA filter is doing well........
This is what I was saying about the Canons, they are sharp, more so it would seem than the Sony.

 

[AlanF]

As the two above the 5DS don’t have AA filters and the top one has it ‘cancelled’ that’s what I’d expect to see. I think the 5Dsr with its ‘cancelled’ filter is interesting here though. You only have to look at files taken on a camera with no AA filter to see that they are still not critically ‘sharp’ when compared to those that have had appropriate and subtle sharpening applied. The 5Dsr with its cancelled out AA filter is doing well........
This is what I was saying about the Canons, they are sharp, more so it would seem than the Sony.

What is truly remarkable is the the R5 sensor resolves as well as the 5DSR despite being 5 Mpx less and having an AA-filter. Canon wasn't lying when it said it would. The new Canon AA-filter is a breakthrough. https://www.optyczne.pl/457.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Rozdzielczość.html

 

[Fischer]

What is truly remarkable is the the R5 sensor resolves as well as the 5DSR despite being 5 Mpx less and having an AA-filter. Canon wasn't lying when it said it would. The new Canon AA-filter is a breakthrough. https://www.optyczne.pl/457.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Rozdzielczość.html

To me its however also a testament of how absolutely amazing the 5DS/R sensor was when it was introduced six years ago. It left not only the 5DIII but also the 5DIV (not shown here) in the dust resolution wise. Really looking forward to seeing what Canon will do with the high MPIX R.

 

[Fischer]

So here is my issue:
1. Would never use.
2. This I consider an advantage I would use for 5DIV
3. I never use ISO over 6400 because it looks terrible IMO.
4. Would never use either.
5. Not a concern at all.

For my use case so far DR is the only significant advantage I am coming up with, but it is offset by the resolution loss

DR only matter sometimes. Resolution matter always. High ISO (>400 ISO) is the same on the two. AF on the 5DIV is a little better, but the 5DS/R has excellent AF for photography - and importantly it does low light AF. Get the tool that works for you.

 

[AlanF]

To me its however also a testament of how absolutely amazing the 5DS/R sensor was when it was introduced six years ago. It left not only the 5DIII but also the 5DIV (not shown here) in the dust resolution wise. Really looking forward to seeing what Canon will do with the high MPIX R.

Yes, I am not selling my 5DSR. What shocked me when I was out with my wife and she was using the 5DSR+100-400mm II+1.4xTC that she got sharper shots than me using the 5DIV+400mm DO II+2xTC of the same birds at the same distance.

 

[Ruined]

Speaking as someone who opted for the 5Ds over the 5DsR, for cost savings - I did a lot of pixel peeping comparing example images, and my conclusion was that I could not determine any extra detail from the 5DsR (at 100%). The 5DsR shots were a tiny bit sharper than the 5Ds, but I figured that a bit more sharpening in post would solve this.

Speaking as a 5Ds owner - this camera is never wanting for detail!


Second question -> Why would you need a second 5Ds? If you are going to inverst in a second body, then why not go for one which will offerer some different specalisations to compliment the main body?

5ds isn't easily attainable anymore so that may be a moot point. On the other hand, you can still order 5DsR from B&H new for 1499, though might take a month to get .

Re: 2nd body, I like to use two bodies shooting at once, like a wide on one and a tele on the other. You can approach this in two ways , get two different bodies that will excel at different tasks ; or , get two of the same bodies. The advantage of two of the same is that - in the different case, if one body is better than the other for 90% of what you use - then two of the same is better than having your second camera that only excels 10% of the time and there is less thought involved in lens swaps

 

[stevelee]

DR only matter sometimes. Resolution matter always. High ISO (>400 ISO) is the same on the two. AF on the 5DIV is a little better, but the 5DS/R has excellent AF for photography - and importantly it does low light AF. Get the tool that works for you.

I don't really disagree with you overall, but I find that 20 or 26 MP is usually more resolution than I need for what I am doing. Would I wind up with slightly better pictures in those instances if I had started off with 50MP files? I don't know. Perhaps marginally so, perhaps it depends upon Photoshop more than anything. Except for stitched panoramas, I never print anything larger than 13" x 19". Would the prints look a tad sharper when viewed from 4" away if originally shot at 50MP? Maybe, but I wouldn't say that "matters." As a practical matter, at my age if I view prints that close, they look really blurry. With reading glasses I could get 6" or 8" away.

 

[Ruined]

I don't really disagree with you overall, but I find that 20 or 26 MP is usually more resolution than I need for what I am doing. Would I wind up with slightly better pictures in those instances if I had started off with 50MP files? I don't know. Perhaps marginally so, perhaps it depends upon Photoshop more than anything. Except for stitched panoramas, I never print anything larger than 13" x 19". Would the prints look a tad sharper when viewed from 4" away if originally shot at 50MP? Maybe, but I wouldn't say that "matters." As a practical matter, at my age if I view prints that close, they look really blurry. With reading glasses I could get 6" or 8" away.

You could argue this for pretty much anything in photography. Will someone notice the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4? Will someone notice a little bit more dynamic range? Will someone notice the difference with slightly lower iso noise?

So a lot is really what makes the shooter happy, though threads like this are good to ensure nothing is being missed in featureset & practical use

 

[stevelee]

You could argue this for pretty much anything in photography. Will someone notice the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4? Will someone notice a little bit more dynamic range? Will someone notice the difference with slightly lower iso noise?

So a lot is really what makes the shooter happy, though threads like this are good to ensure nothing is being missed in featureset & practical use

It is not a matter of will anyone out there notice, but as you later suggest, does it work for me. If I were doing product photography for a high-end magazine then even the differences between the flavors of the hi-res 5D bodies would be of interest. I was disagreeing with the word "always" more than anything else.

 

[Ruined]

It is not a matter of will anyone out there notice, but as you later suggest, does it work for me. If I were doing product photography for a high-end magazine then even the differences between the flavors of the hi-res 5D bodies would be of interest. I was disagreeing with the word "always" more than anything else.

Alright, I was just saying that a lot of the time the photographer cares more about the small technical differences a lot more than the average viewer or client does.

Also while your statement is true, one of the neat things about a high res sensor is the cropping power. So if for whatever reason you needed to use Center AF point for instance due to positioning etc, you could crop away 1/3 of the frame and still have a normal full resolution file for instance - while with a 20MP sensor if you did this for your use case it may be more noticable to you. Or, if you can't get close enough because the lens you have won't reach (because we don't always anticipate everything that happens) the high MP gives you a much better shot of a high detail image as well.

I started out this thread saying that prior to buying the 6D I thought 20MP was more than enough for my photography, and I did really think this. And 20MP is probably "enough." But after trying 50MP it is a big eye opener how much extra flexibility and detail is now possible. I wouldn't give up everything for this detail, but I would give up a little bit (like the DR advantage of the 5D4)

 

[stevelee]

My longest lens is the 100-400mm II zoom. Pictures I have shot of the moon or the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction needed a good bit of cropping. More resolution would have been good if had wanted to make big prints. Otherwise I can’t recall a need for more.

For travel I find the 120mm equivalent on my G5X II to be plenty. I’m more likely to feel limited on the 24mm end.

 

[Ruined]

What is truly remarkable is the the R5 sensor resolves as well as the 5DSR despite being 5 Mpx less and having an AA-filter. Canon wasn't lying when it said it would. The new Canon AA-filter is a breakthrough. https://www.optyczne.pl/457.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_R5_Rozdzielczość.html

It may be possible that the new less aggressive AA filter is simply less destructive than the combined 2 filters in the 5DsR the light has to go through before it hits the sensor. While the 2nd filter of the 5DsR is a cancelling filter its not perfect and that matters with pixels this small.

If you took out the AA filter entirely from R5, it probably would be even better measuring than current R5 measurements - it makes sense that this would be the case no matter what Canon marketing says; and given the extensive testing with the 5DsR, AA filter at 50MP has been proven wholly unnecessary if not counter-productive. But then, of course, canon wouldn't be able to sell you the R5sR in addition to the R5 - classic Canon product segmentation

 

[AlanF]

It may be possible that the new less aggressive AA filter is simply less destructive than the combined 2 filters in the 5DsR the light has to go through before it hits the sensor. While the 2nd filter of the 5DsR is a cancelling filter its not perfect and that matters with pixels this small.

If you took out the AA filter entirely from R5, it probably would be even better measuring than current R5 measurements - it makes sense that this would be the case no matter what Canon marketing says; and given the extensive testing with the 5DsR, AA filter at 50MP has been proven wholly unnecessary if not counter-productive. But then, of course, canon wouldn't be able to sell you the R5sR in addition to the R5 - classic Canon product segmentation

I am a long time anti-anti-alias filter proponent. You can see from one of my previous posts that the resolution of the R5 sensor is only slightly below that of the acclaimed Z7/D850 sensor which has the same pixel count but without the AA-filter. So, Canon could increase the resolution a bit. In return, I have had none of the infrequent examples of Moire I have had with the 5DSR or D850 when using the R5. I believe that Canon retains the AA-filter as feature for video users as Moire affects video recordings - the 5DSR was not aimed at video. So, I can live with the very low level of blurring from the R5 sensor.