Michael Clark
Now we see through a glass, darkly...
The 50D upgrade at the time was the 7D. The 60D was an upgrade in some ways and a downgrade in others.
Upvote
0
A high-megapixel EOS R camera is still on the roadmap [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
The 50D upgrade at the time was the 7D. The 60D was an upgrade in some ways and a downgrade in others.
The. market is changing rapidly. Good chance they reinvent themselves and break with past habits ...
Upvote
0
What did you find was the biggest leap for you? (I know the leap in a body purchase may not coincide with big leaps in technique and artistic vision though ...)
Upvote
0
Yeah it comes down to the subjective difference, I don't find it full of detail across the tonal range. 5Ds does perform on par with Nikon D800 which is 2012, but lags slightly behind D810 (2014) and lags a lot behind 5DIV and A7RIV
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com
The detail in the hair is almost completely lost, better sensors show quite a drastic difference. The noise of 5Ds is very coloured and very grainy. 5DIV does very well at the same time.
Upvote
0
I was shocked by the leap from 7D to 5D, but more than the full-frame sensor, what improved the most was my understanding of post-production, which muddies the waters somewhat. Going from the 5D classic to the RP has been extraordinary as far as AF capability goes (which is of primary important to me as a portrait photographer). How about your own journey?
EDIT: God, and auto ISO. Ohhhhh, auto ISO, how did I ever live without it?
Upvote
0
No, it comes down to two mistakes. One is magnifying the higher resolution cameras more then complaining they have more noise (or motion blur or CA or whatever). Two is assuming that the exposures and/or profiles are identical when it's clear the 5D IV and A7r4 either got a bit more light or have profiles that open the shadows more (most likely the latter). Crushed shadows are a problem with Adobe's default profiles for the 5Ds/sR, and it was even worse with the first profiles released in 2015. I use the Huelight profiles in part because of this. You're also complaining about color noise which literally disappears on any of these cameras at CNR 20 with no loss of color fidelity.
Here's the section you chose, but with the Huelight Portrait v170 profile on the 5Ds (left). Both cameras: no sharpening, no LNR, CNR 20.
Now I'm sure you'll zoom in and complain that the 5Ds has more luminance noise. But it's also a lot sharper. And if we were in a different section of this image, a section that stresses fine detail more, a lot more detailed. At this point I can choose any balance of sharpness/NR I want for the intended print size. I can make it as smooth as the 5D IV sample, or preserve some of the sharpness/detail advantage. On my monitor (216 ppi) 100% is roughly equal to 20x30. And I can tell you at 216 ppi / 20x30 the 5Ds side simply looks sharper, not noisier. I have to zoom to 200% to see the noise difference (which would be closer to the 100% view on a FHD monitor). This would not get better for the 5D IV if I scaled up to 5Ds dimensions rather than down for the comparison.
So I'll stand by my original statement: I have ISO 3200 files from the 5Ds that I would not hesitate to print 24x36.
Upvote
0
That wasn't magnification, that was viewing 1:1. You can click on Comp button and see similar results, slightly imroved for 5Ds because of downscaling.
I don't see shadows in 5DIV any brighter tbh. Moreover, to me it feels like 5Ds image is actually a bit brighter than 5DIV on DPR, same in your sample.
It is sharper, but if you apply any noise reduction (LNR) you'll loose a lot of detail.
What actually disappoints me though is this modified comparison with 90D https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...t=1&x=0.8574631217392756&y=0.2192025092867554
Again at 1:1 90D also produces messy shadows, worse than 5DIV. If this is what new-gen Canon sensors are capable of, I'm concerned. They still haven't caught up with Nikon D810 from 2014.
Upvote
0
I really hadn't been a big Auto iso person until I started thinking how I could use it in narrow ranges depending on the exposure triangle and how I'd nail it all down and use the iso for a little more latitude, wiggle room. i.e. 100-400 or 400-800. Serves me well unlike when I first tried it and kept it wide open, ugh.
2010 was huge for me digitally and I was shooting a fair amount of self dev'd B&W at the time as well. I was firing on all cylinders creatively. With the T2i color and stabilized shooting were eye opening, I started using 'pods more and more. I was never heavy handed in the beginning with Aperture, for some reason that didn't transfer over to LR and I had to release myself from the crushing blacks and blown highlights of the style of B&W I was used to with Tri-X.
The 60D did nothing for me. Dunno. Short lived.I did keep shooting the T2i which is sort of backwards. Also tried a SL1 (too small) So it became a Goldilocks type story. The 7D was a revelation in ergonomics, not imaging. I hated the noise ceiling of 6400 iso. Then the 5D3 came out, my just right porridge and I early adopted. Wow. Latitude, DoF, more features than I could ever think to configure.
Since then I have been all about glass and working on me and my vision... not the camera body, and chasing megapixels and rez- reading about everyone wanting more more more drives me nuts. As most here know, I can't hold up my end of the sensor tech talk arguments...That's not my thing. However, I have had lens G.A.S. since buying my first L lens the OG 70-200 f/4L, still a great lens. Currently have none which is nice with a very good set and since my camera body itself is getting long in the tooth I really want to upgrade prior to having any service issues. It will be a 2nd body.
Edit* Film bodies...Vivitar 220 SL, Nikon EM, Nikon FM2 (long break) EOS 5, Elan 7e, EOS 3, Holga 120
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I can't believe I have to explain this but 1:1 magnifies higher resolution files more because it's a one-to-one mapping of image pixels to screen pixels. Why else do you think her head was larger in some of the squares?
A 50mp 2:3 ratio file at 1:1 on a typical 4k monitor is the equivalent of a 40" print. On a typical FHD monitor it's equivalent to a 90" print.
I can measure it on screen with Digital Color Meter. In the section you're complaining about the hair is darker on the 5Ds, almost certainly due to profile differences. Like I said, Adobe's profiles tend to crush the blacks on the 5Ds/sR. (It was disgustingly bad when the cameras first came out.)
Of course it does. It's a crop sensor. The same pixel density in a FF sensor would have FF noise characteristics when viewed at the same print size.
Upvote
0
For me it was AE1 > A1 > EOS 620 > EOS 3 > EOS 1v HS > 10D > 1D Mk II > 1Ds Mk II > 5D > 1D Mk III > 5D2 > RS?
AE1 taught me the fundamentals
A1 allowed me to capture more due to better/more useful metering
620 was a setback as the AF sucked, but the technical back was fun
EOS 3 eye control did not work well for me, I should have just got the 1V
1V HS was great way to waste film, but I got very good at reloading
10D was the biggest leap for me, with the instant feedback of chimping
1D Mk II increased my keepers
1Ds Mk II was a great increase in printable images
5D was a great landscape body for me
1D Mk III was the biggest setback due to AF failures, I should have dumped it, it sits on a shelf with 6x7 gear
5D2 is a great body and was my last after the career impact of the 1D Mk III
RS will be my first new gear in over a decade, and now that I am retired I can focus on landscapes again
Upvote
0
I produced some of my best work with a 7D. But I really didn't like it at ISO 3200 and 6400. High key shots worked alright at 3200, but anything else...yeah.
It was pretty darn good for a crop camera at lower ISOs though. And like you said, fantastic ergonomically.
Upvote
0
Oh snap, I forgot to entertain with my film bodies.... Thanks for going way back and sharing, here's your chip.
Upvote
0
I went 20D -> 5DM3 -> 5DSR. These were each significant jumps and the last one required me to upgrade quite a bit of glass. Will be interested to see what this year holds and what my upgrade path will include. I am hoping for a mirrorless MP monster with great DR and a 7dmII replacement for wildlife. Will consider the new R5 if it ticks all the right boxes as a wildlife rig.
Upvote
0
I have been wondering if any of my older L glass (first gen IS) will hold up to a 70MP+ sensor. Did you have to upgrade any L glass for the 5DSR, and if so what?
Upvote
0
We're talking about different things. You're talking about visual sizes of objects, I'm saying that 1:1 doesn't magnify anything as you see 1 image pixel per 1 screen pixel.
Not sure about the brightness of shadows (to me they're very close and I've a calibrated monitor), but the highlights are brighter in 5Ds capture for some reason.
It shouldn't matter if it's a crop sensor or not, in terms of the noise viewed at 1:1.
Upvote
0
Yes, for sure. The EF 24-105 (1st Gen) was unuseable (* meaning I couldn't accept the quality) on the 5DSR - I never tried the 2nd gen but I expect that wasn't much better. I would doubt the RF 24-105 would resolve adequately on a 70MP+ sensor.
The EF 17-40L was also traded in to get the superb EF 16-35 f/4L IS for the same reason.
Finally, and most disappointingly, the EF 24-70 f/2.8L 1st gen was clearly not up to the job of working with the 5DSR so I again traded mine in towards the Mark II of the same lens, which is great on the 5DSR.
Prime lenses such as the 50mm f/1.2L , 85mm f/1.2L II, 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro and 135mm f/2.0 were fine.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
