6DMk2 or 5Ds-R for landscape and portraits?

[j-nord]

Apparently, debating hypothetical specs of future cameras isn't enough, we now need to hypothetically compare the hypothetical specs of two hypothetical cameras and make a real purchase decision.

 

[takesome1]

You think 6D2 will have a better sensor than the 5D4 or the 5Ds-R?

Anybody else wondering this?

On the premise that a 5D4 and a 6D2 are released this year.

You are asking will the entry level 6D2 <$2K body have a better sensor than the >$3K 5D4 and the 5Ds R?

I would say sure, Canon is going to cannibalize sales of their high end bodies.

How do you qualify "better sensor". The 6D pixels are better than 5D Mark-III pixels and the 5Ds-R pixels as well. On a pixel level the 5Ds-R performs slightly worse than the 7D Mark-II, which I found disappointing. If you scale all images to the same resolution then the 5DsR will have marginally better performance up to ISO 400 after which the 6D overtakes it. So the precedent has been set of the 6D having comparatively good sensor.

Slow continuous fps, basic AF and single card slot, lack of headphone jack etc... is what prevents the 6D from cannibalizing their high-end bodies, not the sensor performance.

It depends on what you think is a better pixel. If you think size matters than sure the 6D is better. I suppose if you primarily "Scale" to 4x6 then the 6D resolution disadvantage would look really good compared to the 5Ds R.
Then if you primarily shoot at ISO 1600 and above the 6D would have a vastly superior sensor, or would it? You just scaled your 6D and 5Ds R image to 4x6. Of course how does that scaled comparison shake out when you blow your shot up poster size?

So to your question: "How do you qualify "better sensor" I would say, how do you qualify a better pixel?

A better pixel is able to record a given portion of the scene more faithfully.

Say for example you shoot an image of a flower with two different cameras so that size of the flower in both images is the same number of pixels. Assuming they use equivalent lenses, the camera with the better pixels captures the flower more faithfully.

p.s. I've attached two 100% crops images which show how a few months ago I captured a subject to the same pixel scale on two different cameras systems. (I was comparing the shooting experience of the Tamron 35VC on APS-C vs the 40mm STM on full frame.)

So with a 5Ds R you modify your FOV to make this happen?
Single pixel comparison when you should be comparing how 2+ pixels of the 5Ds R perform vs the 1 of the 6D II.
Your giving the old rehashed "crop factor" comparison, that comparison really doesn't apply with the release of the 5Ds R.

Now you can compare equally framed pictures, with the same fov from the same distance. 1 large pixel vs 2+ smaller of the 5Ds R.

 

[takesome1]

You think 6D2 will have a better sensor than the 5D4 or the 5Ds-R?

Anybody else wondering this?

On the premise that a 5D4 and a 6D2 are released this year.

You are asking will the entry level 6D2 <$2K body have a better sensor than the >$3K 5D4 and the 5Ds R?

I would say sure, Canon is going to cannibalize sales of their high end bodies.

How do you qualify "better sensor". The 6D pixels are better than 5D Mark-III pixels and the 5Ds-R pixels as well. On a pixel level the 5Ds-R performs slightly worse than the 7D Mark-II, which I found disappointing. If you scale all images to the same resolution then the 5DsR will have marginally better performance up to ISO 400 after which the 6D overtakes it. So the precedent has been set of the 6D having comparatively good sensor.

Slow continuous fps, basic AF and single card slot, lack of headphone jack etc... is what prevents the 6D from cannibalizing their high-end bodies, not the sensor performance.

Fortunately we don't print and view pixels, we print and view photos. The 5Ds vs. 7D2 comparison makes little sense since the 5Ds produces better IQ and that's all that matters.

Well some do print and view pixels but all of their non photographer buddies are not impressed.

But you are right with the rest of your statement and it is all that matters.

 

[Mikehit]

A better pixel is able to record a given portion of the scene more faithfully.

Say for example you shoot an image of a flower with two different cameras so that size of the flower in both images is the same number of pixels. Assuming they use equivalent lenses, the camera with the better pixels captures the flower more faithfully.

p.s. I've attached two 100% crops images which show how a few months ago I captured a subject to the same pixel scale on two different cameras systems. (I was comparing the shooting experience of the Tamron 35VC on APS-C vs the 40mm STM on full frame.)

But you are not comparing pixels. You are comparing the sensor technology, the AD converter, software and the and the processing engine.

And as takesome1 says, I frame a shot to capture the picture I want and not so that the main subject is covered by a specific number of pixels.

 

[Sporgon]

A better pixel is able to record a given portion of the scene more faithfully.

Say for example you shoot an image of a flower with two different cameras so that size of the flower in both images is the same number of pixels. Assuming they use equivalent lenses, the camera with the better pixels captures the flower more faithfully.

p.s. I've attached two 100% crops images which show how a few months ago I captured a subject to the same pixel scale on two different cameras systems. (I was comparing the shooting experience of the Tamron 35VC on APS-C vs the 40mm STM on full frame.)

But you are not comparing pixels. You are comparing the sensor technology, the AD converter, software and the and the processing engine.

And as takesome1 says, I frame a shot to capture the picture I want and not so that the main subject is covered by a specific number of pixels.

Yes, just what I was thinking reading this thread. The Digic processor has a huge influence, as does the raw converter. I recently went back over some 5D raw files with the latest ACR and it was like - "wow". The results from the Canon G1x ( digic 5) and G1xII ( digic 6) are superb, better than the 7D, which uses basically the same sensor tech but digic 4.

The continually improving QE (quantum efficiency) of the sensor only seems to have a benefit in operating at higher ISO in practice. If I expose correctly at base ISO I cannot see any output benefits in a camera that has a QE of 58% over one that has a QE of 28%.

 

[bdunbar79]

You think 6D2 will have a better sensor than the 5D4 or the 5Ds-R?

Anybody else wondering this?

On the premise that a 5D4 and a 6D2 are released this year.

You are asking will the entry level 6D2 <$2K body have a better sensor than the >$3K 5D4 and the 5Ds R?

I would say sure, Canon is going to cannibalize sales of their high end bodies.

How do you qualify "better sensor". The 6D pixels are better than 5D Mark-III pixels and the 5Ds-R pixels as well. On a pixel level the 5Ds-R performs slightly worse than the 7D Mark-II, which I found disappointing. If you scale all images to the same resolution then the 5DsR will have marginally better performance up to ISO 400 after which the 6D overtakes it. So the precedent has been set of the 6D having comparatively good sensor.

Slow continuous fps, basic AF and single card slot, lack of headphone jack etc... is what prevents the 6D from cannibalizing their high-end bodies, not the sensor performance.

It depends on what you think is a better pixel. If you think size matters than sure the 6D is better. I suppose if you primarily "Scale" to 4x6 then the 6D resolution disadvantage would look really good compared to the 5Ds R.
Then if you primarily shoot at ISO 1600 and above the 6D would have a vastly superior sensor, or would it? You just scaled your 6D and 5Ds R image to 4x6. Of course how does that scaled comparison shake out when you blow your shot up poster size?

So to your question: "How do you qualify "better sensor" I would say, how do you qualify a better pixel?

A better pixel is able to record a given portion of the scene more faithfully.

Say for example you shoot an image of a flower with two different cameras so that size of the flower in both images is the same number of pixels. Assuming they use equivalent lenses, the camera with the better pixels captures the flower more faithfully.

p.s. I've attached two 100% crops images which show how a few months ago I captured a subject to the same pixel scale on two different cameras systems. (I was comparing the shooting experience of the Tamron 35VC on APS-C vs the 40mm STM on full frame.)

So with a 5Ds R you modify your FOV to make this happen?
Single pixel comparison when you should be comparing how 2+ pixels of the 5Ds R perform vs the 1 of the 6D II.
Your giving the old rehashed "crop factor" comparison, that comparison really doesn't apply with the release of the 5Ds R.

Now you can compare equally framed pictures, with the same fov from the same distance. 1 large pixel vs 2+ smaller of the 5Ds R.

Agreed. But even if he did do that, the magnification is still different between the two cameras. I'm failing to understand how from his methodology this was accounted for. The only way I can see is put 20 MP's of the 5Ds on subject, 20 MP's of the 7D2 on subject, then crop the 5Ds image to the FoV of the 7D2 image. I've done that. The 5Ds image is still better. AlanF did the same as well, so I would almost even argue that the 7D2 pixels are NOT better.

 

[takesome1]

You think 6D2 will have a better sensor than the 5D4 or the 5Ds-R?

Anybody else wondering this?

On the premise that a 5D4 and a 6D2 are released this year.

You are asking will the entry level 6D2 <$2K body have a better sensor than the >$3K 5D4 and the 5Ds R?

I would say sure, Canon is going to cannibalize sales of their high end bodies.

How do you qualify "better sensor". The 6D pixels are better than 5D Mark-III pixels and the 5Ds-R pixels as well. On a pixel level the 5Ds-R performs slightly worse than the 7D Mark-II, which I found disappointing. If you scale all images to the same resolution then the 5DsR will have marginally better performance up to ISO 400 after which the 6D overtakes it. So the precedent has been set of the 6D having comparatively good sensor.

Slow continuous fps, basic AF and single card slot, lack of headphone jack etc... is what prevents the 6D from cannibalizing their high-end bodies, not the sensor performance.

It depends on what you think is a better pixel. If you think size matters than sure the 6D is better. I suppose if you primarily "Scale" to 4x6 then the 6D resolution disadvantage would look really good compared to the 5Ds R.
Then if you primarily shoot at ISO 1600 and above the 6D would have a vastly superior sensor, or would it? You just scaled your 6D and 5Ds R image to 4x6. Of course how does that scaled comparison shake out when you blow your shot up poster size?

So to your question: "How do you qualify "better sensor" I would say, how do you qualify a better pixel?

A better pixel is able to record a given portion of the scene more faithfully.

Say for example you shoot an image of a flower with two different cameras so that size of the flower in both images is the same number of pixels. Assuming they use equivalent lenses, the camera with the better pixels captures the flower more faithfully.

p.s. I've attached two 100% crops images which show how a few months ago I captured a subject to the same pixel scale on two different cameras systems. (I was comparing the shooting experience of the Tamron 35VC on APS-C vs the 40mm STM on full frame.)

So with a 5Ds R you modify your FOV to make this happen?
Single pixel comparison when you should be comparing how 2+ pixels of the 5Ds R perform vs the 1 of the 6D II.
Your giving the old rehashed "crop factor" comparison, that comparison really doesn't apply with the release of the 5Ds R.

Now you can compare equally framed pictures, with the same fov from the same distance. 1 large pixel vs 2+ smaller of the 5Ds R.

Agreed. But even if he did do that, the magnification is still different between the two cameras. I'm failing to understand how from his methodology this was accounted for. The only way I can see is put 20 MP's of the 5Ds on subject, 20 MP's of the 7D2 on subject, then crop the 5Ds image to the FoV of the 7D2 image. I've done that. The 5Ds image is still better. AlanF did the same as well, so I would almost even argue that the 7D2 pixels are NOT better.

I have done this to with the 5Ds R. The difference in the two with the 5Ds R cropped is negligible and definitely he 5Ds R is not wore than the 7D II.

But using two different lenses, I see no comparison with his methodology that you can determine that one pixel is better than the other.

 

[StudentOfLight]

You think 6D2 will have a better sensor than the 5D4 or the 5Ds-R?

Anybody else wondering this?

On the premise that a 5D4 and a 6D2 are released this year.

You are asking will the entry level 6D2 <$2K body have a better sensor than the >$3K 5D4 and the 5Ds R?

I would say sure, Canon is going to cannibalize sales of their high end bodies.

How do you qualify "better sensor". The 6D pixels are better than 5D Mark-III pixels and the 5Ds-R pixels as well. On a pixel level the 5Ds-R performs slightly worse than the 7D Mark-II, which I found disappointing. If you scale all images to the same resolution then the 5DsR will have marginally better performance up to ISO 400 after which the 6D overtakes it. So the precedent has been set of the 6D having comparatively good sensor.

Slow continuous fps, basic AF and single card slot, lack of headphone jack etc... is what prevents the 6D from cannibalizing their high-end bodies, not the sensor performance.

It depends on what you think is a better pixel. If you think size matters than sure the 6D is better. I suppose if you primarily "Scale" to 4x6 then the 6D resolution disadvantage would look really good compared to the 5Ds R.
Then if you primarily shoot at ISO 1600 and above the 6D would have a vastly superior sensor, or would it? You just scaled your 6D and 5Ds R image to 4x6. Of course how does that scaled comparison shake out when you blow your shot up poster size?

So to your question: "How do you qualify "better sensor" I would say, how do you qualify a better pixel?

A better pixel is able to record a given portion of the scene more faithfully.

Say for example you shoot an image of a flower with two different cameras so that size of the flower in both images is the same number of pixels. Assuming they use equivalent lenses, the camera with the better pixels captures the flower more faithfully.

p.s. I've attached two 100% crops images which show how a few months ago I captured a subject to the same pixel scale on two different cameras systems. (I was comparing the shooting experience of the Tamron 35VC on APS-C vs the 40mm STM on full frame.)

So with a 5Ds R you modify your FOV to make this happen?
Single pixel comparison when you should be comparing how 2+ pixels of the 5Ds R perform vs the 1 of the 6D II.
Your giving the old rehashed "crop factor" comparison, that comparison really doesn't apply with the release of the 5Ds R.

Now you can compare equally framed pictures, with the same fov from the same distance. 1 large pixel vs 2+ smaller of the 5Ds R.

I did (see red highlighted portion)

Here are couple of factors which can erode the resolution advantage the 5Ds cameras have:

• using higher ISO settings (e.g. ISO>1600)
• camera shake (due to slow shutter speed, no IS, no tripod)
• using narrow apertures (the effect of diffraction is increasingly apparent from f/8-f/32)
• using a lens with bad aberrations (lack of contrast, strong falloff, poor sharpness, chromatic aberration, LoCA, astrigmatism)

(There are probably a few more)

If there were no advantage to the 5Ds/R then those cameras would not exist. There are situations where that advantage is to be had, but it is not automatically going to be there just because of the sensor.

My whole point of joining the conversation was in response to the quoted text highlighted in purple. The fact is that 6D sensor is superior to the 5D-III sensor and in just some cases better than the 5Ds cameras as well (e.g. higher ISO e.g. ISO 3200-12800) Therefore, I see no reason why the 6D-II could not have a better sensor (in more that just some cases) than the older generation technology in the 5Ds R.

p.s. If I could, I would transplant my 6D sensor into my 5D-III. It's just better. I'd also swap in the 5Ds mirror drive, I love that silky smooth motion.

 

[YellowJersey]

I would wait for the 5D mkIV and the 6D mkII and then assess your options once all the cameras are out rather than basing a decision on speculation of how well these cameras will perform. I'd say a 5D mkIV is all but guaranteed and it's highly probably that a 6D mkII will follow, so we should see both released by this time next year.

It would really suck to spend the money on a 5Ds/r only to find the 5D mkIV and/or 6D mkII blow it away, save for resolution.