5DS/R 50mp jpegs now on Flickr

[CaptureWhatYouSee]

FYI:

saw this on dpreview:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55289994

 

[Marsu42]

5DS/R 50mp jpegs now on Flickr

This is funny because "web-sized" flickr shots definitely don't need 50mp. Of course you can display them and offer the full size download, but only a fraction of people will view your shots even at 2048px res...

... however you have the marketing people credit for choosing these shots, they appear to have crisp, fine details even at thumbnail size and you can just feel the high definition no matter how large the actual output size :->

Edit: Did you see the 100L macro shot at f32 (!?!?!?!?) to get a reasonable dof at this resolution? With this diffraction, I'd rather remain at 20mp, thank you very much.

 

[ecqns]

i find some of these samples disappointing from a technical aspect, artistically the landscapes are very beautiful. I do not see great detail, I see blotchy and smeary where I should see fine detail. Hopefully its b/c its and out of camera jpg? I would choose better if I was showing this camera off.

 

[Eldar]

I think the jury is still out ...

 

[mackguyver]

I think the jury is still out ...

+1 - these are way overprocessed and look awful. The official shots looked pretty good, so only time will tell.

 

[V8Beast]

It's not wise to pass final judgement considering there are jpegs and no one knows how they were processed. That said, the gradients on the lipstick images and the landscape look quite notchy. The portrait and the library image look much better.

 

[Marsu42]

I do not see great detail, I see blotchy and smeary where I should see fine detail.

This is probably the "Nikon d800" disappointment reloaded - fine detail at that resolution is hard to come by, as written above the macro shot isn't better as the same thing with more reasonable aperture and 20mp.

I do not see great detail, I see blotchy and smeary where I should see fine detail.

Hardly - fine in-camera jpegs have hefty sizes and a lot of detail, it's just that they have destructive white balance and less dynamic range / tonality which makes people prefer raw.

 

[ecqns]

This is probably the "Nikon d800" disappointment reloaded - fine detail at that resolution is hard to come by, as written above the macro shot isn't better as the same thing with more reasonable aperture and 20mp.

We'll see about resolution, I just received a nice Sony a7r package I ordered the day after seeing the 5Ds announcement. Looking forward to putting my TS-Es on there.

 

[dak723]

Only looked at a couple of the samples, but the amount of detail looks impressive to me - if that's your cup of tea. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned, but I'd rather not see every hair on a woman's face when looking at a portrait! I'm sure the cameras will sell, but 50 MP of detail might just be the last thing I would want in a photo. I sincerely hope the camera companies continue to make 12- 24 MP cameras and don't all get caught up in the high-tech madness. Too much detail can be a real distraction that takes away from subject matter and composition. That's an old art adage that looks like it will be forgotten in these high-tech times. Too bad.

 

[Marsu42]

Only looked at a couple of the samples, but the amount of detail looks impressive to me - if that's your cup of tea.

Look at the 100L macro shot of the lips again, this is really bad and there's very little detail due to diffraction.

Perhaps I'm just old fashioned, but I'd rather not see every hair on a woman's face when looking at a portrait!

Same problem with restored tv series or older movies re-released on hi-def bluray - you really don't want to see the details like bad makeup, cheap scenery/props as it takes you out of the movie :-\

 

[zim]

Just looked at the Canon EOS 5DS with EF85mm f/1.2L II USM - 27.42mb photo - absolutely horrid