4 stop push: 5DS vs 5D Mk III

[tomscott]

Sweet gig! And great shots. How does one get to be photographer for UU?

Thank you. It has been really great, luck and hard work I suppose. Making lots of work and getting it out there.

Eldar and TomScott: I'm curious about your assessment of the 5DS vs. 5D III at higher ISOs. I assumed that the 5DIII still performs better at higher ISOs in terms of noise. Do you disagree? It sounds to me like the 5DIII is still slightly better, but not as significantly better as one might expect, given the higher resolution (smaller pixels).

Because of the subjects I have to shoot, dynamic range is much less important to me than high ISO performance. I'm just curious how you guys would characterize the differences.

It also sounds as though, from your experience, the improved performance of the 5DS may mean the 5DIV could be a real beast if they keep the megapixel count at 24 or so.

The thing is yes the 5DS has more noise than the 5DIII, you can't expect it not to it has twice the resolution, but in real practise the difference is negligible until you go past 3200 and to say its bad is plain wrong and with a little PP cleans up as well as the 5DMKIII, can the 5DMKIII shoot clean 12800? Yes but not for large prints for web ye great! But these full frame cameras weren't designed for web use.

Like I said above I see 4000 as my limit but 6400 in a pinch is useable. So if a camera with double the resolution can come close to IMO one of the best cameras on the market for high ISO then thats pretty damn impressive and makes the camera useable in a myriad of situations. The difference is that you can crop 50% into a 5DS image and have a similar size A1 print to that of the 5DMKIII which has some serious application especially for birders or similar style of photography, save some money on glass and still have as many pixels on target as a 5DMKIII... Amazing. In practical terms tho the size of the files and the buffer will be the issue in that situation, but if you have good skill and patients I'm sure the results will be incredible.

Yes in modern terms the camera doesn't perform as well as other cameras but a lot of these cameras have again half the resolution if you compare the actual noise in a well exposed image not an image that has been pushed 4 stops it holds its own, but that doesn't mean you can't push the files.

I don't own a 5DS yet and I'm in a similar position to Eldar before he pulled the trigger. I have downloaded every sample raw file I could find pushed them as far as I would with my 5DMKIII with the practise I use in the field and I've been very impressed. I have then tried to find something that bares resemblance in my library and have been again impressed.

The fact is a lot of people review these cameras and then compare them with no noise reduction. It doesn't matter whether you use a D810, A7RII if you push them you need to add noise reduction. I was curious about the A7RII so I downloaded Dan Watsons RAW files from learningcameras.com today and pushed them about as far as they could go and although impressive they still needed a similar amount of noise reduction that I would add to my Canon files although the colour noise was better.

The comment that nailed it on the head for me is that the 5DMKIV has the potential to be a killer camera and although the resolution is great in the 5DSr I'm not one for cropping and I'm suitably happy with the size of the files from the 5DMKIII if it got a small bump and includes some of the new improvements it will be a market killer, especially for people like me that needs a camera that suits many situations.

Im going to wait for that, if the MKIV isn't what I'm expecting I will probably get a 5DSr to replace my 5DMKIII and buy a 1DX at a discount and use the 5DMKIII as a backup, you couldn't get a much better lineup than that I don't think and it will suit more than my needs, as it would for pretty much anyone.

 

[unfocused]

Eldar and TomScott: I'm curious about your assessment of the 5DS vs. 5D III at higher ISOs...

The thing is yes the 5DS has more noise than the 5DIII, you can't expect it not to it has twice the resolution, but in real practise the difference is negligible until you go past 3200 and to say its bad is plain wrong and with a little PP cleans up as well as the 5DMKIII, can the 5DMKIII shoot clean 12800? Yes but not for large prints for web ye great! But these full frame cameras weren't designed for web use...

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I truncated your response to save space, but it seems very reasonable and balanced. I suspected that I am one of those who is better off sticking with the 5DIII and waiting to see what happens with the 5DIV.

The work that I actually get paid for tends to be general purpose, with a heavy dose of low light interiors where flash is not allowed. I love landscape and wildlife, but that's not my bread and butter. The thing is, I bought the 5DIII when I thought I needed full frame for portraiture, but found the realities of a new business model places me in low light situations where the 5DIII has saved my rear any number of times.

I'll stick with the 5DIII, maybe add a 7DII for personal enjoyment and then wait and see what Canon does with the 5DIV.

 

[NancyP]

One thing is for sure - old computers are likely to wheeze a bit when confronted with files twice as large. Plenty of time to make a pot of tea while waiting for ingestion to finish.... I don't have the 5Ds/r yet, I would like to upgrade from 2010 computer first. :

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Folks.
First nice shot Tom. I love Cumbria and the lakes, and your shots keep me supplied with a fix of Cumbria regularly.
Second, I'm not happy with the way that 31 Year Old single malt is balanced on the Websters English Dictionary, it looks rather risky! ;D
I'm not experienced enough to voice an opinion on image pushing and pulling except that I have seen examples posted that look great, and others that look false to me but then even those are better than many of my shots so who am I to critique the work of others. :
Needles to say it is all educational.

Cheers, Graham.

For those who wonder, you can also shoot at ISO12800. On this one I have applied 39 i Luminance NR. Everything else is default LR. I actually find it difficult to understand why Canon did´t also allow ISO25600.

 

[Aglet]

I had about 5 minutes at a camera store last night to do some quick shots with the 5Ds. I had my 5D Mk III and 7D MK II with me and I wanted to see how far I can underexpose and then push to recover the files.
I only included the two full frame camera here. The 7D MK II is several stops better than the 5D MK III at low ISO but still behind the 5Ds.

From a pure IQ and RAW leeway aspect, the 5Ds series is a no-brainer. The RAW files are amazing.

full size download: http://www.photographybyrudyconrad.com/5Ds-and-5D-MK-III-4-stop-post-/n-LsGzQg/

Click on photos, then bottom right has download icon.

NOTE: focus point was different for each photo

Good to see those 2 compared like that.
5Ds is significantly better than the old 5d3/2 performance.
Tho with this much push, there's plenty of visible FPN on the background wall even with the 5Ds.

 

[docsmith]

For those who wonder, you can also shoot at ISO12800. On this one I have applied 39 i Luminance NR. Everything else is default LR. I actually find it difficult to understand why Canon did´t also allow ISO25600.

I do not own the 5Ds R, but after reviewing comparisons of noise at higher ISO, the only rationale I am left with is file size. As ISO increases, so does file size and I am wondering if Canon cut off at ISO 12,800 due to issues with going larger than the 88 MB file size, which would already be 440 MB/sec at 5 fps.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5Ds.aspx

For comparison, the 5DIII maxes out at 49 MB (ISO 102,400) and the 1DX maxes out at 41.3 MB (ISO 204,800) which would be 294 MB/sec and 495 MB/sec respectively. So, it gets does to how much more can dual Digic 6 (5Ds R) handled in comparison to dual Digic 5+ (1DX) and also write speeds to cards as well.

 

[sanj]

The proof of the pudding ...

The exposure for this one was set to get the buildings to the left and the sky properly exposed. The histogram for the raw image is packed from left to right. For those of you who never lift more than 2 stops and never lift shadows to +100. Tell me what I have done here.

Great example Eldar to show all who wonder why it is nice to be able to open up blacks. Looking at the picture I feel it would have been better to have even more control over blacks as I would have liked to expose the image 1/3 stop darker to get more details in the buildings and clouds...
Thanks for posting.

 

[drjlo]

Thirlmere Reservoir , Allerdale, Lake District, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Superb, love everything about this photograph

+1, and the fact it was shot with the "lowly" Canon 24-105 at 24 end. I guess one does not need a Zeiss wide angle to make beautiful landscape photos ;D

 

[Maiaibing]

reviewing comparisons of noise at higher ISO, the only rationale I am left with is file size. As ISO increases, so does file size and I am wondering if Canon cut off at ISO 12,800 due to issues with going larger than the 88 MB file size, which would already be 440 MB/sec at 5 fps.

You nailed it 100%! No way Canon was going to point to the double digic6 as a bottleneck. But 50mb is the reason 5DS/R chokes on the intervalometer and lets you review a former shot in stead of the current.

The good news is that its actually great high iso for the mb count for a Canon FF.

 

[tomscott]

+1, and the fact it was shot with the "lowly" Canon 24-105 at 24 end. I guess one does not need a Zeiss wide angle to make beautiful landscape photos ;D

I have a problem with the 10 stop ND filter that I have. It is an 82mm thread for my 16-35mm F2.8 unfortunately when you use it at its wider and medium tele end 16-24mm the element is bulbous and close to the filter, I'm not entirely sure why but it tends to leave a bright pink mark right in the centre of the image and its impossible to remove unless I go black and white so I put the filter on my 24-105 with a 77-82mm adapter. I have a feeling because it was a more budget ND (but still £100) that the glass is too thick and close to the lens so I think an adapter to move it further away from the glass element itself will fix the problem or just buy a new one. But works fine on my 24-105.

I love my 24-105mm always take it with me when I'm out shooting landscapes. I have the 24-70mm F2.8 MKI and find at the wide end its very very similar in sharpness and the fact its bigger and weighs more means it stays at home for anything but weddings and events.

Ive done my best to remove it in the below image but you can still see it if you look closely.

Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

 

[scyrene]

+1, and the fact it was shot with the "lowly" Canon 24-105 at 24 end. I guess one does not need a Zeiss wide angle to make beautiful landscape photos ;D

I have a problem with the 10 stop ND filter that I have. It is an 82mm thread for my 16-35mm F2.8 unfortunately when you use it at its wider and medium tele end 16-24mm the element is bulbous and close to the filter, I'm not entirely sure why but it tends to leave a bright pink mark right in the centre of the image and its impossible to remove unless I go black and white so I put the filter on my 24-105 with a 77-82mm adapter. I have a feeling because it was a more budget ND (but still £100) that the glass is too thick and close to the lens so I think an adapter to move it further away from the glass element itself will fix the problem or just buy a new one. But works fine on my 24-105.

I love my 24-105mm always take it with me when I'm out shooting landscapes. I have the 24-70mm F2.8 MKI and find at the wide end its very very similar in sharpness and the fact its bigger and weighs more means it stays at home for anything but weddings and events.

Ive done my best to remove it in the below image but you can still see it if you look closely.

Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

I think I'm gonna have to take my ND filter out sometime - you've inspired me!

 

[sanj]

I suspect I am in the minority but I find these blurred clouds distracting and forced.

 

[Eldar]

I suspect I am in the minority but I find these blurred clouds distracting and forced.

I tend to agree. The landscape itself looks great, but the blurry sky disconnects the image. I´m sure it is a personal thing though.

 

[tomscott]

I dont tend to shoot many, clients seem to like it tho.

I think it adds a different dynamic to the image, get more sense of the landscape. But were all different, most important thing is to keep yourself on your toes and try something different.

 

[tomscott]

I personally like the movement. Cant have it both ways as my ND gives too much of a cast and being a 10 stop you wouldn't be able to blend the exposures. But I always shoot it both ways just incase.

Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

But like I said if we all had the same opinion the world would be a pretty boring place.

 

[scyrene]

I suspect I am in the minority but I find these blurred clouds distracting and forced.

I tend to agree. The landscape itself looks great, but the blurry sky disconnects the image. I´m sure it is a personal thing though.

I dunno, I guess it's both introducing some movement, and focusing attention on the stillness of the land below? Never done it myself but I'd like to try.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I like to hear and reflect on the various opinions and think it's great when the person who is the focus of the opinions can handle that. It is personal and it is good to try different shots and not to be bound by convention. Friendly, constructive back and forth criticism is healthy and helpful.

Jack

 

[scyrene]

I suspect I am in the minority but I find these blurred clouds distracting and forced.

I tend to agree. The landscape itself looks great, but the blurry sky disconnects the image. I´m sure it is a personal thing though.

I don't mind the blurry sky so much as the wind blown bushes in the bottom left. Ugh.

All that just to get a smooth lake?

Tough crowd!

 

[Famateur]

I don't mind the blurry sky so much as the wind blown bushes in the bottom left. Ugh.

All that just to get a smooth lake?

Tough crowd!

I was thinking the same thing...

Admirably handled, Tom. I'm glad to be a part of a forum with people like yourself. Thanks for sharing such beautiful photographs!

 

[gary samples]

I don't mind the blurry sky so much as the wind blown bushes in the bottom left. Ugh.

All that just to get a smooth lake?

Tough crowd!

I was thinking the same thing...

Admirably handled, Tom. I'm glad to be a part of a forum with people like yourself. Thanks for sharing such beautiful photographs!

+1