5DSR II?

[Sporgon]

..... and it would be nice if the metering were linked to the autofocus points),

Just a note on this: in matrix metering mode the metering is in fact linked to the selected AF point - to a degree, and has been for generations of Canon dslrs. Maybe you meant spot AF, but that is such a dangerous way of metering a scene !

Pleased you like the 5DIV. I decided to go for the 5Ds due to the (pretty steady !) type of photography I do and I'm generally delighted with the IQ.

 

[lexaclarke]

@lexaclarke: my 5DsR is lightyears ahead of the 5DII I had. Even the 6D was an upgrade. Comparing files from a wedding shoot over weekend, the focus with my 200/2.8 on the 5DsR is about 95%, that for the 6D is perhaps 30% even with the centre point. The 6D is now relegated to backup or when I must use two bodies simultaneously and then I mount a wideangle on it. And in my view, the 6D was a major step up on my 5DII. The delay in 5DsR image review is annoying, though.

Every time I've used the 5DS R it has been better but not enough better to justify the cost. Especially in speed and responsiveness. Maybe I'm shooting in darker conditions than you that are holding it back, but I've not seen it be any faster or more accurate. I like having the IQ but if I'm going to drop three grand on something it needs more than just IQ and to not just be way, way better now, but it also needs to be so far ahead that in ten years it'll still hang. I'm looking at the 1D X as the benchmark for speed that's enough to justify the cost.

 

[Talys]

My Canon clock is ticking here. I've been waiting too long for a new body that at least comes close to the competitors and it's been only disappointments one after another.

As someone who actually owns a 5DIV, I find this statement incomprehensible.

Some personal history: I owned a 5DIII and I now own a 7DII, 5DIV and 1DX II. Bought the 7DII because the 5DIII was inadequate for sports and at ISO 6400, the noise of the 7DII is not that much worse than the 5DIII.

Bought the 1DX II because I wanted the speed of a 7DII coupled with the superior noise and sensor performance of full frame.

Bought the 5DIV late last fall because I wanted a second full frame body with a quieter shutter, so I wouldn't have to keep switching lenses on the 1DX II.

I could not be much happier with the 5DIV. In fact, it is now my main camera and I use the 1Dx II almost exclusively for sports. There are a few quibbles (the lack of illuminated points is a real pain in dark settings and it would be nice if the metering were linked to the autofocus points), but overall it's now my main camera for shooting anything but sports and even with sports shooting, I find the 7 fps is usually adequate.

Some people think the difference between a 5DIII and 5DIV is negligible, I completely disagree. It's more like the difference between the 7D and 7DII -- which is huge. You might not find it in "features" but it's very evident in performance.

The 5DIV is a majestic camera. I'd own one, except I kept holding out for a full frame Canon DSLR that had a fully articulating (face forward) screen, because of the work I do. Often, camera is high up on a tripod, and I want a forward facing LCD so that I can recompose my scene without having to fidget with the camera.

I ended up getting a 6DII, which is closer to a 5DIII's performance -- but even that is amazingly good.

When I hear people complain that the 5DIV isn't good enough... what I want to see is the kind of photography they do that is so demanding.

 

[Mancubus]

My Canon clock is ticking here. I've been waiting too long for a new body that at least comes close to the competitors and it's been only disappointments one after another.

As someone who actually owns a 5DIV, I find this statement incomprehensible.

You and Talys missed the point of my comment. This is not about what I need (I could do my work with a Rebel if I had to), but the value and features I'm getting for my money.

Canon is charging top dollar for a Camera that is WAY inferior to the similar priced (cheaper on release) D850 and I won't even get started on the Sony A7III.

When buying a car, I will evaluate what every brand offers for the money. Of course any option will be able to take me around, but I want to get the best I can get in the price range. There are engine specs, safety features and lots of other practicality items that can be very different when looking at competitors from different brands. The same goes for cameras with the difference that I'm tied up with the lenses and unfortunately changing brands is not as easy (or I would have done it long ago).

The options I have now from Canon are a joke. Of course I could perform my job with any of these cameras, but there are so many small stuff that Canon lacks that I can't get myself to buy anything from the current lineup (except the 1DX-II but I don't need the speed and I want something smaller).

I want:
- no AA filter
- UHS-II on SD slot
- 1/250 sync
- -4EV AF
- Focus Peaking
- Focus Stacking
- Auto AF calibration
- DR and Noise same as the top ones from Nikon and Sony
- Automatic focus on eye
- Sensor shift stabilizer

This is why my hopes are on the 5DSR2, please Canon don't disappoint me again.

 

[AlanF]

You will be disappointed, so get used to the idea because they are not designing the camera just for you.

 

[Mancubus]

You will be disappointed, so get used to the idea because they are not designing the camera just for you.

Right and wrong.

Right that I will probably be disappointed.

Wrong that it's a camera just for me. How can you not want any of those features? If the next camera has half of the listed features I'd be happy already.

 

[Orangutan]

I want:
- no AA filter
- UHS-II on SD slot
- 1/250 sync
- -4EV AF
- Focus Peaking
- Focus Stacking
- Auto AF calibration
- DR and Noise same as the top ones from Nikon and Sony
- Automatic focus on eye
- Sensor shift stabilizer

I still don't get the fetish regarding lack of AA filter; do people think moiré is attractive? In side-by-side comparisons I've seen, the sharpness difference seems rather small, especially for a high-resolution camera. Why take a chance on ruining an epic photo with moiré.

 

[Sporgon]

I want:
- no AA filter

I still don't get the fetish regarding lack of AA filter; do people think moiré is attractive? In side-by-side comparisons I've seen, the sharpness difference seems rather small, especially for a high-resolution camera. Why take a chance on ruining an epic photo with moiré.

+1

I went for the 5Ds, not sr. Even for those who's greatest photographic pleasure is in analysing their images at 100% there is, IMO, a negligible difference after applying say 0.2 pixel @ 100% of sharpening to the 5Ds, so I was happy to save the £200.

 

[tron]

One thing is certain: If it is going to be named 5DsRMkII it will NOT have an AA filter (for all its advantages and disadvantages).

Apart from a sensor improvement (5DIV style) a faster frame rate and a bigger buffer I cannot find anything important missing.

Nice but less important:

A UHS-II would be nice but only as a second card. The 150MB/sec CF cards are excellent. I believe they would include Dual Pixel AF, GPS, Wifi and touch screen anyway too.

 

[bhf3737]

...

I want:
- no AA filter
- UHS-II on SD slot
- 1/250 sync
- -4EV AF
- Focus Peaking
- Focus Stacking
- Auto AF calibration
- DR and Noise same as the top ones from Nikon and Sony
- Automatic focus on eye
- Sensor shift stabilizer

This is why my hopes are on the 5DSR2, please Canon don't disappoint me again.

I do not understand the hype around sensor shift stabilizer (IBIS), either.
IBIS and in-lens stabilization are both technologies with their own rewards and disadvantages:
1. In-lens stabilization is more effective when using long lenses. There are several experiments verifying this.
2. In-lens stabilization is more effective in low light because the received image on the sensor is already stabilized and metering/AF can be more accurate. Again there are several experiments verifying this.
3. IBIS is more effective when using wide lenses but may cause more vignetting because of sensor movement unless cropped a little bit.

If your use-case is adapting and using wide bright lenses in low-light and take advantage of IBIS you may want to think twice.

Also, combining IBIS and in-lens stabilization is not always rewarding and may cause sway or other unwanted image movements. Again there are several experiments showing that this may cause jagged video when panning.

 

[lexaclarke]

I still don't get the fetish regarding lack of AA filter; do people think moiré is attractive? In side-by-side comparisons I've seen, the sharpness difference seems rather small, especially for a high-resolution camera. Why take a chance on ruining an epic photo with moiré.

My partner has a 7D with the AA filter removed and it's a huge difference from the normal 7D. It makes his old 400mm look like a modern 600mm or something because it's so much more detailed. Moire is never a problem and that's only an 18mp crop camera. The way I understand it, higher resolutions make moire even rarer. When I've used the 5DS R I've always been blown away by the clarity and that extra clarity means I've been able to crop in, rescale, and apply heavier noise reduction for a cleaner, better-looking final image but still have more detail. Never seen moire or nasty noise patterns or any of the other problems people claim not having an AA causes.

I think the fact Nikon, Sony and Fujifilm have embraced not using AA filters so much, and they've all been so successful with it, says everything you need to know. And most medium format cameras too and some micro four thirds.

Having used and seen the difference between AA vs no AA, I find it really hard to imagine ever buying another camera body with an AA filter.

 

[AlanF]

I still don't get the fetish regarding lack of AA filter; do people think moiré is attractive? In side-by-side comparisons I've seen, the sharpness difference seems rather small, especially for a high-resolution camera. Why take a chance on ruining an epic photo with moiré.

My partner has a 7D with the AA filter removed and it's a huge difference from the normal 7D. It makes his old 400mm look like a modern 600mm or something because it's so much more detailed. Moire is never a problem and that's only an 18mp crop camera. The way I understand it, higher resolutions make moire even rarer. When I've used the 5DS R I've always been blown away by the clarity and that extra clarity means I've been able to crop in, rescale, and apply heavier noise reduction for a cleaner, better-looking final image but still have more detail. Never seen moire or nasty noise patterns or any of the other problems people claim not having an AA causes.

I think the fact Nikon, Sony and Fujifilm have embraced not using AA filters so much, and they've all been so successful with it, says everything you need to know. And most medium format cameras too and some micro four thirds.

Having used and seen the difference between AA vs no AA, I find it really hard to imagine ever buying another camera body with an AA filter.

Lensrentals did some tests of 5DSR vs 5DS and found the AA-filter reduces resolution by about 10%. I find the 5DSR is about 10% sharper still than you would expect relative to the 5DIV. I won't buy a 7DIII if it retains an AA-filter. I think Canon retains the AA-filter for video, but it is bad for stills.

 

[scyrene]

I want:
- no AA filter

I still don't get the fetish regarding lack of AA filter; do people think moiré is attractive? In side-by-side comparisons I've seen, the sharpness difference seems rather small, especially for a high-resolution camera. Why take a chance on ruining an epic photo with moiré.

+1

I went for the 5Ds, not sr. Even for those who's greatest photographic pleasure is in analysing their images at 100% there is, IMO, a negligible difference after applying say 0.2 pixel @ 100% of sharpening to the 5Ds, so I was happy to save the £200.

Same.

 

[reef58]

You will be disappointed, so get used to the idea because they are not designing the camera just for you.

Right and wrong.

Right that I will probably be disappointed.

Wrong that it's a camera just for me. How can you not want any of those features? If the next camera has half of the listed features I'd be happy already.

I don't care about 6 out of 10 you listed. Goes to show different strokes.

 

[AlanF]

I want:
- no AA filter

I still don't get the fetish regarding lack of AA filter; do people think moiré is attractive? In side-by-side comparisons I've seen, the sharpness difference seems rather small, especially for a high-resolution camera. Why take a chance on ruining an epic photo with moiré.

+1

I went for the 5Ds, not sr. Even for those who's greatest photographic pleasure is in analysing their images at 100% there is, IMO, a negligible difference after applying say 0.2 pixel @ 100% of sharpening to the 5Ds, so I was happy to save the £200.

Same.

If there are details that would be observable with a 10% increase in resolution, the the 5DSR should resolve them. If there are not such details, the 5DS will be as good as the 5DSR. For much of the time, it won't make much difference, for the some of the time the AA-filter will make images worse.

 

[Orangutan]

I want:
- no AA filter

I still don't get the fetish regarding lack of AA filter; do people think moiré is attractive? In side-by-side comparisons I've seen, the sharpness difference seems rather small, especially for a high-resolution camera. Why take a chance on ruining an epic photo with moiré.

+1

I went for the 5Ds, not sr. Even for those who's greatest photographic pleasure is in analysing their images at 100% there is, IMO, a negligible difference after applying say 0.2 pixel @ 100% of sharpening to the 5Ds, so I was happy to save the £200.

Same.

If there are details that would be observable with a 10% increase in resolution, the the 5DSR should resolve them. If there are not such details, the 5DS will be as good as the 5DSR. For much of the time, it won't make much difference, for the some of the time the AA-filter will make images worse.

I'm afraid this doesn't address my question very well: unless one is performing technical work (counting objects), the ability to resolve (as for a pair of binary stars) is not the question, it's the quality of the image. Except with very large prints, the human eye will not see the 10% difference. For those very large prints, my eye would be offended much more by moiré than by 10% loss of linear resolution. A 10% loss of resolution will slightly reduce sharpness; while moiré destroys the image entirely.

 

[Sporgon]

I want:
- no AA filter

I still don't get the fetish regarding lack of AA filter; do people think moiré is attractive? In side-by-side comparisons I've seen, the sharpness difference seems rather small, especially for a high-resolution camera. Why take a chance on ruining an epic photo with moiré.

+1

I went for the 5Ds, not sr. Even for those who's greatest photographic pleasure is in analysing their images at 100% there is, IMO, a negligible difference after applying say 0.2 pixel @ 100% of sharpening to the 5Ds, so I was happy to save the £200.

Same.

If there are details that would be observable with a 10% increase in resolution, the the 5DSR should resolve them. If there are not such details, the 5DS will be as good as the 5DSR. For much of the time, it won't make much difference, for the some of the time the AA-filter will make images worse.

I'm afraid this doesn't address my question very well: unless one is performing technical work (counting objects), the ability to resolve (as for a pair of binary stars) is not the question, it's the quality of the image. Except with very large prints, the human eye will not see the 10% difference. For those very large prints, my eye would be offended much more by moiré than by 10% loss of linear resolution. A 10% loss of resolution will slightly reduce sharpness; while moiré destroys the image entirely.

And even then the 10% 'more' resolution that AlanF claim is moot; if you read the Lens Rentals article, the excellent Zeiss Otus only gave 5% more between the two cameras, and only in the centre of the frame. But also this is shooting a black and white test chart; if I used my camera to shoot black and white test charts I too would choose the 5DSR. ( If I hadn't jumped in front of a bus by then). When shooting in the real world with the Bayer Array method of computing colour I'm not at all convinced that you'll see this '5 - 10%' difference anyway. Certainly those that I know who don't have a personal agenda on the subject, when using the Pentax K5 vs K5s ( or what ever it was called) and the Nikon D800 / D800e and the 5Ds / 5DsR say that there is naff all difference even when printing at full sized output.

However, generally it seems that the sales pitch of "no blurring AA filter" means that the next 5Ds/r will probably not have the AA filter, aka Nikon, Pentax et al

 

[lexaclarke]

You all can keep guessing at what you think you would or wouldn't see and you're welcome to want to feel good about your purchase of the regular 5DS, but I've seen and used a camera with an AA filter directly next to the same model with the AA removed and the one without the filter is very noticeably clearer, with much better micro contrast and detail, and no moire even on a body with lower pixel density than the 5DS/R.

This is like when digital took over but some people kept holding on to film claiming it had more dynamic range and more accurate colour and digital was a fad. Like, no. That's why Kodak are dead.

 

[tron]

You all can keep guessing at what you think you would or wouldn't see and you're welcome to want to feel good about your purchase of the regular 5DS, but I've seen and used a camera with an AA filter directly next to the same model with the AA removed and the one without the filter is very noticeably clearer, with much better micro contrast and detail, and no moire even on a body with lower pixel density than the 5DS/R.

This is like when digital took over but some people kept holding on to film claiming it had more dynamic range and more accurate colour and digital was a fad. Like, no. That's why Kodak are dead.

It depends what you shoot. For example in a set of photos with bee-eaters the best photos (the ones with bee-eaters within reasonable distance had moire). The same with some glossy ibises.

 

[lexaclarke]

My partner uses their non-AA 7D specifically for birds and hasn't switched back to our regular (with AA filter) 7D since. Having seen the pictures, I wouldn't switch back, either.