5Ds or 5Ds R

[chauncey]

Am going to upgrade from my 1Ds Mk3 to a 5Ds series>will not be upgrading my L glass>
most of my eclectic imagery is done using a 300mm f/2.8 or a 180 macro lens.

Cropping of images would be kept to minimum as large image size appeals to me,
nose length viewing distance in prints is also important.

As I don't plan on upgrading my glass...would I see the benefit in going with the 5Ds R?

 

[privatebydesign]

If the 1DX MkII is not in the 24mp area then I will be upgrading my 1DS MkIII to the 5DSR, from what I have seen moire is not often enough of an issue to not get the slightly sharper files from the R version, and the moire removal tools available seem well able to deal with it on most occasions.

 

[chauncey]

I was concerned that my older glass might not be able to take advantage of the somewhat higher detail present in the 5Ds R.

 

[privatebydesign]

You will get higher resolution from a higher resolution sensor whatever lens you put in front of it, here is a cut and paste from a previous thread I gave about this 'out resolving' nonsense.

System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect but pretty close.

tsr = 1/sqrt((1/lsr) ² + (1/ssr) ² )

Where tsr is total spatial resolution, lsr is lens spatial resolution, and ssr is sensor spatial resolution.

So if, for example, we have a sensor that can resolve 100 lppmm, and a lens that can resolve 100 lppmm we get this

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/100) ² ) = tsr of 71 lppmm

Leave the same lens on, good or bad, and double the sensor resolution to 200 lppmm

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/200) ² ) = tsr of 89 lppmm


You will notice that the system resolution, even in this simplified form, can never resolve 100% of the lowest performing portion of that system, so if a 24MP sensor is returning 80% of the potential of a lens then a 50MP sensor might return 90%, how useful that is in real life is a moot point, but it does illustrate that even the most modest lens will show increased resolution when put in front of a higher resolving sensor.

This works even if your lens is very modest, but your 300 and 180 are both very good lenses. Lenses are not a consideration when thinking of the differences between the 5DS and 5DSR, the only thing to consider is moire, how much it might impact your shooting and what tools are available to mitigate it. If I was shooting more fashion I wouldn't touch the R, clothing is a big source of moire and is often the subject, but for general use the R seems to be fine and the correction tools seem pretty capable.

 

[bdunbar79]

I've decided to go with a 5Ds over the Sony A7R II and was wondering what RAW software you guys are using. I currently use Adobe LR, Camera RAW, and PS (subscription) but have heard complaints about the profiles or rendering of Adobe products with the 5Ds. Could be completely off-base too. Thank you for your feedback.

 

[Rupp1]

I agree with privatebydesign about moiré being the primary difference between the 5DS and the5DS-R. From my admittedly limited experience so far, and from reviews that I have read, the moiré is not really that big a problem and is correctable in LR when it occurs. I don't do weddings much, so don't rely on me completely. The R is also slightly sharper, which means more to me. My feeling is that the 5DS/SR are for shooters willing to be a bit careful, so if you are willing to pay for the S, why not go the extra $200 for the sharper R.

As to lenses: (1) Canon seems to have listed lenses which are optimal for the 5DS/R, and some of my old favorites aren't on it, including the 35mm ƒ1.4 L, the 300mm 2.8 and the 500 4( they do list the newer models). I have no answer as to whether a replacement is really necessary. Especially for the 300mm, which is one of my favorite lenses ever. (2) I had a 1Ds3, and 2, and 1, and now have a 1Dx. When I got the three, my first thought was that the lenses were not good enough to take advantage of the sensitivity of the sensor (or maybe there was a problem cramming too many itsy-bitsy pixels on a 25mm sensor). So maybe lenses do make a difference. I've always wondered (based on other folks' experience and/or pictures) if for pure IQ, the 5D3 wasn't as good or better than the 1Ds3 (and the 1Dx).

I have both of the lenses that you do. I'm hoping that I don't have to upgrade either, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on the 180mm macro. At nose length on a big print, you might see the difference between the 1Ds3 and the 5DSR. It's easier to see at 1:1 on a good monitor. Again, I think Privatebydesign has a point that in theory the 5DS/R should get more from the lens, but also that it might be moot.

This is clearly a want, rather than need issue. But, I should suggest that if you are happy with your body/lens combination, and you are very concerned about needing to upgrade your glass, that you wait a bit. Replacing the 300mm ƒ4 is a bigger deal than getting a new body. I don't suppose that there is any chance that you can go take a few test pics with some other Canon bodies?

 

[Rupp1]

I've decided to go with a 5Ds over the Sony A7R II and was wondering what RAW software you guys are using. I currently use Adobe LR, Camera RAW, and PS (subscription) but have heard complaints about the profiles or rendering of Adobe products with the 5Ds. Could be completely off-base too. Thank you for your feedback.

I use LR, PS (and therefore Camera Raw) with plug-ins that I like. Full disclosure: I print from exported TIFF files using ImagePrint from Colorbyte software on Epson printers, so my comments do not apply to printing. I have had older versions of Capture One, just as DPP is always on the computer somewhere, but I don't use them. I find that resources for help with Adobe issues are legion, where Capture One will leave you frustrated. I have only had the 5DS-r for a few weeks, but Adobe seems fine so far. You can always get a LR/PS monthly subscription from Adobe if you want to try it out, and compare it to DPP (at least on profiles).

 

[bdunbar79]

I've decided to go with a 5Ds over the Sony A7R II and was wondering what RAW software you guys are using. I currently use Adobe LR, Camera RAW, and PS (subscription) but have heard complaints about the profiles or rendering of Adobe products with the 5Ds. Could be completely off-base too. Thank you for your feedback.

I use LR, PS (and therefore Camera Raw) with plug-ins that I like. Full disclosure: I print from exported TIFF files using ImagePrint from Colorbyte software on Epson printers, so my comments do not apply to printing. I have had older versions of Capture One, just as DPP is always on the computer somewhere, but I don't use them. I find that resources for help with Adobe issues are legion, where Capture One will leave you frustrated. I have only had the 5DS-r for a few weeks, but Adobe seems fine so far. You can always get a LR/PS monthly subscription from Adobe if you want to try it out, and compare it to DPP (at least on profiles).

Thanks for the response. I will try it then. I already have the monthly subscription from Adobe that I use. Thanks.

 

[chauncey]

Plus the fact that a couple of percent seems kinda pointless.
BTW...I've been heavy into PS for 8 years, trying to convert to being an artist, whatever that even means,
still haven't mastered it.

 

[Zeidora]

I have a 5DsR. I have the 180 macro, but the Zeiss 100 Makroplanar is noticeably better corrected. If you need longer focal length, then that settles it. The 180 is still quite all right.
Re official Canon listing, well they are a commercial company wanting to sell products. There is nothing wrong with an older 300/2.8.
s vs sR is just a question of moire concerns, so depends a lot on what you shoot. It is possible to get moire but most people, including myself, do not consider it a serious problem.

Re processing RAW, my PS CS5.5 does not open them and Adobe does not make ARC converters for newer camera models available for older versions of PS. As I absolutely loath the subscription model, I use DxO Optics Pro for raw conversion. It is faster than CS5.5 action, and works great for batch processing 100s of images; I do a lot of macro-stacking.

 

[bdunbar79]

I honestly can't wait to get it. Thanks.

 

[Maiaibing]

I've decided to go with a 5Ds over the Sony A7R II and was wondering what RAW software you guys are using. I currently use Adobe LR, Camera RAW, and PS (subscription) but have heard complaints about the profiles or rendering of Adobe products with the 5Ds. Could be completely off-base too. Thank you for your feedback.

If you get a 5DS/R you should really look into using one of the many alternative color profiles instead of Adobe's standard profile.

In the picture below you can see that with my own profile I get both better shadows and better highlights - at the same time. So you will save potentially a lot of time by looking elsewhere. There are several alternative profiles for free or very cheap out there to use.

Adobe to the left - mine to the right. Zero adjustments.

 

[privatebydesign]

I've decided to go with a 5Ds over the Sony A7R II and was wondering what RAW software you guys are using. I currently use Adobe LR, Camera RAW, and PS (subscription) but have heard complaints about the profiles or rendering of Adobe products with the 5Ds. Could be completely off-base too. Thank you for your feedback.

If you get a 5DS/R you should really look into using one of the many alternative color profiles instead of Adobe's standard profile.

In the picture below you can see that with my own profile I get both better shadows and better highlights - at the same time. So you will save potentially a lot of time by looking elsewhere. There are several alternative profiles for free or very cheap out there to use.

Adobe to the left - mine to the right. Zero adjustments.

Agreed, I have said many times, people who have more than a passing interest in colour or are disappointed with the Adobe out of the box profiles need to spend a few moments making their own. Many of these cameras perform much better than the native third party profiles would have you believe, it just takes a little time to understand what they are doing how they work and to make your own.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

I was concerned that my older glass might not be able to take advantage of the somewhat higher detail present in the 5Ds R.

This was shot with my old 100-400. Even though it's a screen grab, you can see the detail runs deep.

Thom Richard Hot Stuff screen shot 5172 web © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

 

[chauncey]

Keith...I would suggest that you've addressed my question quite succinctly.

 

[Rupp1]

If you get a 5DS/R you should really look into using one of the many alternative color profiles instead of Adobe's standard profile.

There are several alternative profiles for free or very cheap out there to use.

Would you mind providing a link to some of the alternative profiles you mention? Thanks.

 

[chauncey]

Would you mind providing a link to some of the alternative profiles you mention? Thanks.

Let me first state that I have no objection to this tangent as my query has been answered.

Referring to color, let me say that for eight years, I have been an avid RAW shooter and LR/PS user, the only time that truly accurate colors
concern me is when I shoot people images. In those scenarios, I rely solely on the http://www.xrite.com/ system.

In all other situations, colors are selected by "what looks good" from an artistic standpoint...period.

 

[Sporgon]

Would you mind providing a link to some of the alternative profiles you mention? Thanks.

Let me first state that I have no objection to this tangent as my query has been answered.

Referring to color, let me say that for eight years, I have been an avid RAW shooter and LR/PS user, the only time that truly accurate colors
concern me is when I shoot people images. In those scenarios, I rely solely on the http://www.xrite.com/ system.

In all other situations, colors are selected by "what looks good" from an artistic standpoint...period.

From quite extensive testing between the various 5 series cameras done by a friend of mine I would say that the 5Ds/r has reverted a little back to the reddish tone of the 5DII when compared with the 5DIII, (With a like-for-like conversion of course).

We are talking almost imperceptible subtleties, a little like the difference between the 's' and 'sr'. In practical output I cannot see a jot of difference between them. The only way to see it is to take two identical images shot with near perfect technique and then view it at 100% on a good screen without adding any intelligent sharpening. As soon as you have added appropriate sharpening to the 's' I can't see any difference in even very large size output in print.

I suppose theoretically if you were going to print beyond the native resolution then the 'sr' version would give better information for interpolation up, but I'd have to see it to believe it.

But as everyone seems to clamour for the 'sr' version I guess in the long run it wouldn't cost you any more in the purchase: the Nikon D800e has continued to hold its £300 premium over the D800 on the used market, and so you would be pretty confident of getting your £300 extra back when you came to 'upgrade' in years to come.

 

[Maiaibing]

Would you mind providing a link to some of the alternative profiles you mention? Thanks.

Here you can several references - including a link to the ones I use the most like the one I used above which controlled Adobe's overblown whites, delivered the deep red and shows far more shadow detail.

www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56884866

 

[Zeidora]

Would you mind providing a link to some of the alternative profiles you mention? Thanks.

Let me first state that I have no objection to this tangent as my query has been answered.

Referring to color, let me say that for eight years, I have been an avid RAW shooter and LR/PS user, the only time that truly accurate colors
concern me is when I shoot people images. In those scenarios, I rely solely on the http://www.xrite.com/ system.

In all other situations, colors are selected by "what looks good" from an artistic standpoint...period.

Agreed. Unless one shoots products for catalogs, there's very little point in going crazy with camera profiles. There are WAY too many variables, both at the shooting side, as well as at the viewing side. Plus natural color rendition of most scenes is considered psychologically "dull". Back in the day, Agfachrome had the most faithful color reproduction, but everybody clamored about rich, hypersaturated Velvia.

The only place I notice significant differences is with display profiles (stock vs. spider). But even for printing after soft proofing, the stock paper profile works perfect, meaning, I cannot see differences between display (NEC UHD322) and print (Epson 4880, Epson paper).

Have fun with the 5DS/r!