canon 5ds at www.imaging-resource.com
- Thread starter Ladesir
- Start date
I'm not going to bash on people who may or may not own a Canon. Whatever. This is a forum. We come here to discuss.
That being said, I have to question those people who constantly go on and on about dynamic range. Particularly the people who say that the 5Ds will not even make a good landscape camera because of the decreased dynamic range in comparison to the D810 and A7R. Have these people actually done landscape work? I'm not talking here and there. I'm talking on a consistent basis. I have. I still use a 5D2 because the 3 wasn't a big enough jump in resolution. That's a 7 year old camera. I have also used my friend's D810 and 14-24 which he was kind enough to lend me for a recent week trip down the OR/CA coast and another week in the Sierras. It is true the Nikon packs more DR. However, this increased DR is rarely as useful as some people would have you believe.
During the daytime, there's no difference in general. The one time where there was an advantage to the Nikon vs Canon was in a rather dense forest during a cloudless day. In general, the forest was dark, but of course sunlight peaked in through the trees and leaves. These were pretty bright hotspots. In post, the Nikon handled it better than the Canon, and looked much closer to what my eyes saw one I raised the shadows. That being said, it's still a daytime picture, with sun, in a dense forest. It's very hard to make such a scene look great, no matter how much DR you have. Some things just don't translate well onto camera.
During sunset/sunrise, there was no situation where the camera really made a difference. A lot of times, the Canon could deal with the dynamic range. As bad as everyone says it is, it still can be pushed a bit in the shadows, just not as much as the Nikon. Typically though, the Canon camera can handle the scenes. There are certain scenes which it can't. I'm talking about facing towards the sunset, as the sun sets behind a mountain. These are scenes were you have intensely bright sky, combined with the dark backside of a mountain receiving no direct light. In these situations, even the Nikon couldn't get it right, and I had to bracket (actually I just take 2, never found a need for 3 separate exposures). Another situation I came upon that the Canon couldn't handle was at the ocean. There was a setting sun. There was also a hole in the rocks near the ocean, with water at the bottom, obviously a product of the powerful erosion forces. Needless to say, this was a dark hole (whatever you want to call it), with no direct light hitting it. Guess what? The Nikon needed to be bracketed also.
I'm not saying there's no situations where the Canon won't be able to get a proper picture but the Nikon will. Those situations do exist. But they're quite a lot more rare than some of these DR-fanatics believe, or perhaps they simply lack the skill in post processing. But even in those situations, we can still just take a second exposure to account for the lack of light. Even on the Nikon, in many cases, I took two pictures, because a properly exposed photo of a dark area is still leagues better than simply raising the shadows.
This is all to say, in my 9 years of being a landscape photographer, I have not once come across a scene that I couldn't photograph due to dynamic range. Sometimes I have to take a second shot. This is pretty much a non-issue though. Click the shutter again. The fanatics on the forum always come up with some hypothetical situation where multiple exposures would not work, such as the wind blowing fiercely on brightly lit trees with a dark unlit mountain in the background, or any other multitudes of ideas (and I've heard a lot), but in real world practice, this has never came up as an issue. There's always a workaround, and it has always been easy. Usually, it's just snapping another photo at an increased duration.
That said, I welcome any improvements to DR. They won't change anything drastically, but it also won't hurt any. However, as a landscape photographer, what I *am* buying this upcoming camera for is the massive increase in resolution. *That* is not as easy to account for as DR. Of course, I can do stitches. But that is more tedious in both set up and in post processing than simply accounting for DR.
That being said, I have to question those people who constantly go on and on about dynamic range. Particularly the people who say that the 5Ds will not even make a good landscape camera because of the decreased dynamic range in comparison to the D810 and A7R. Have these people actually done landscape work? I'm not talking here and there. I'm talking on a consistent basis. I have. I still use a 5D2 because the 3 wasn't a big enough jump in resolution. That's a 7 year old camera. I have also used my friend's D810 and 14-24 which he was kind enough to lend me for a recent week trip down the OR/CA coast and another week in the Sierras. It is true the Nikon packs more DR. However, this increased DR is rarely as useful as some people would have you believe.
During the daytime, there's no difference in general. The one time where there was an advantage to the Nikon vs Canon was in a rather dense forest during a cloudless day. In general, the forest was dark, but of course sunlight peaked in through the trees and leaves. These were pretty bright hotspots. In post, the Nikon handled it better than the Canon, and looked much closer to what my eyes saw one I raised the shadows. That being said, it's still a daytime picture, with sun, in a dense forest. It's very hard to make such a scene look great, no matter how much DR you have. Some things just don't translate well onto camera.
During sunset/sunrise, there was no situation where the camera really made a difference. A lot of times, the Canon could deal with the dynamic range. As bad as everyone says it is, it still can be pushed a bit in the shadows, just not as much as the Nikon. Typically though, the Canon camera can handle the scenes. There are certain scenes which it can't. I'm talking about facing towards the sunset, as the sun sets behind a mountain. These are scenes were you have intensely bright sky, combined with the dark backside of a mountain receiving no direct light. In these situations, even the Nikon couldn't get it right, and I had to bracket (actually I just take 2, never found a need for 3 separate exposures). Another situation I came upon that the Canon couldn't handle was at the ocean. There was a setting sun. There was also a hole in the rocks near the ocean, with water at the bottom, obviously a product of the powerful erosion forces. Needless to say, this was a dark hole (whatever you want to call it), with no direct light hitting it. Guess what? The Nikon needed to be bracketed also.
I'm not saying there's no situations where the Canon won't be able to get a proper picture but the Nikon will. Those situations do exist. But they're quite a lot more rare than some of these DR-fanatics believe, or perhaps they simply lack the skill in post processing. But even in those situations, we can still just take a second exposure to account for the lack of light. Even on the Nikon, in many cases, I took two pictures, because a properly exposed photo of a dark area is still leagues better than simply raising the shadows.
This is all to say, in my 9 years of being a landscape photographer, I have not once come across a scene that I couldn't photograph due to dynamic range. Sometimes I have to take a second shot. This is pretty much a non-issue though. Click the shutter again. The fanatics on the forum always come up with some hypothetical situation where multiple exposures would not work, such as the wind blowing fiercely on brightly lit trees with a dark unlit mountain in the background, or any other multitudes of ideas (and I've heard a lot), but in real world practice, this has never came up as an issue. There's always a workaround, and it has always been easy. Usually, it's just snapping another photo at an increased duration.
That said, I welcome any improvements to DR. They won't change anything drastically, but it also won't hurt any. However, as a landscape photographer, what I *am* buying this upcoming camera for is the massive increase in resolution. *That* is not as easy to account for as DR. Of course, I can do stitches. But that is more tedious in both set up and in post processing than simply accounting for DR.
Upvote
0
SoullessPolack said:
You make to much sense and you will end up getting sick of this forum because of all the DR obsessed folks on here who complain more and more about smaller and smaller things. It's fine I guess if everyone was the same it would be a pretty boring place. With that said the 5DR/S is just to specialized and expensive for me to bite on upgrading from my Mkiii at this time.
Upvote
0
I'm a little suspicious of this test. Specifically the comparisons the D810 and the 5dR. Looking at the Exif data, we see that supposedly the images are shot with the same lens. But the canon version is showing some small but significant chromatic aberration in the margins, whereas the nikon image shows none. Strangely, IR has chosen an area in the margins to use as their primary comparison. That, combined with the sharpening level of the 810 being higher is generally giving a false impression in this comparison. Obviously they are not the same lens (unless the sigma comes with an interchangeable mount?)..Either the canon version is a poor copy of the sigma 70mm 2.8, or the nikon image has undergone some correction. It's also clear that the canon isn't focused as well on that peppermill as the nikon is.
As for the noise, while it's expected that the higher pixel density canon would have higher noise at high ISO than the nikon, what I'm seeing is simply a higher level of NR on the D810, as the noise characteristic of that camera seems less consistent and "dirtier" than the canon sample.
Finally, looking at the iso 100 samples of the Pentax, there seems to be little difference compared to the Canon, except, again, that the pentax is sharpened a little more.
So far, on this test, the canon is certainly holding it's own against it's competitors. I'm interested in seeing some skintones and some real world dynamic range tests.
As for the noise, while it's expected that the higher pixel density canon would have higher noise at high ISO than the nikon, what I'm seeing is simply a higher level of NR on the D810, as the noise characteristic of that camera seems less consistent and "dirtier" than the canon sample.
Finally, looking at the iso 100 samples of the Pentax, there seems to be little difference compared to the Canon, except, again, that the pentax is sharpened a little more.
So far, on this test, the canon is certainly holding it's own against it's competitors. I'm interested in seeing some skintones and some real world dynamic range tests.
Upvote
0
Just went and pulled the nikon 6400 jpg file with -0- noise reduction and compared it to the same on the canon. I'd say the nikon has higher chroma noise and chunkier, less consistent luma noise in the darker mid-tones when the files are equalized for size. (nikon on the right).
Attachments
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
SoullessPolack said:
Indeed, I've stated that for years. Even in the contrived shots some members post to demonstrate the utility of more DR, it's obvious – for example, in interior shots comparing the 5DIII and a7R to show the better shadow-lifting with Exmor, the windows in the scene were completely blown out so clearly bracketing was needed with either camera.
But...DRones gonna DRone. :
Upvote
0
You're kidding me - DR is the answer to ALL photographic problems and will make us all better photographers, dare I say, experts! I say this because ALL pros now use Sony sensors in their camera, and nothing you've seen published in the last several years was shot with a Canon camera. Right???neuroanatomist said:SoullessPolack said:
Indeed, I've stated that for years. Even in the contrived shots some members post to demonstrate the utility of more DR, it's obvious – for example, in interior shots comparing the 5DIII and a7R to show the better shadow-lifting with Exmor, the windows in the scene were completely blown out so clearly bracketing was needed with either camera.
But...DRones gonna DRone. :
We lowly Canon shooters have to be content worrying about things like content, composition, focus, exposure, shutter speed, depth or field, etc. - pesky things that have very little to do with the final output.
Upvote
0
In my opinion there are much bigger things to worry about 5Ds/R than DR:
- Your lens line up
- Your storage
- How you used to take pictures....tripod will be your best friend from now on
It will really lead to a change of habits. DR will not be an issue at all. Based on what I discussed with a couple of Professionals, they see this camera as a replacement of 1Ds MKIII, not at all an evolution of 5D series.
There will be 5D MKIV.
- Your lens line up
- Your storage
- How you used to take pictures....tripod will be your best friend from now on
It will really lead to a change of habits. DR will not be an issue at all. Based on what I discussed with a couple of Professionals, they see this camera as a replacement of 1Ds MKIII, not at all an evolution of 5D series.
There will be 5D MKIV.
Upvote
0
When I was looking to purchase DSLR, I checked out Sony forums to understand upgrade options for kit lens (growing beyond kit lens). Not sure if something changed now. There was no general purpose lens available for upgrading from kit lens (something like 17-50 F2.8 ) . Some people recommended some expensive f/4 lens and some F2.8 17mm sigma prime. There are some using sigma 17-50 canon one with adapter which was the best portable option. Lens reviews on photozone are not great either even with exmor sensor with exceptional DR. Particularly those kit lens were very bad. Not sure if situation any different for sony FF.mackguyver said:You're kidding me - DR is the answer to ALL photographic problems and will make us all better photographers, dare I say, experts! I say this because ALL pros now use Sony sensors in their camera, and nothing you've seen published in the last several years was shot with a Canon camera. Right???neuroanatomist said:SoullessPolack said:
Indeed, I've stated that for years. Even in the contrived shots some members post to demonstrate the utility of more DR, it's obvious – for example, in interior shots comparing the 5DIII and a7R to show the better shadow-lifting with Exmor, the windows in the scene were completely blown out so clearly bracketing was needed with either camera.
But...DRones gonna DRone. :
We lowly Canon shooters have to be content worrying about things like content, composition, focus, exposure, shutter speed, depth or field, etc. - pesky things that have very little to do with the final output.
Upvote
0
The EF mount, menu system, 5 series ergonomics and construction quality are all more critical features to me than just DR. Again, this isn't a walkin' around camera, and it wont be for me either. This is for studio work in controlled situations, and it looks great for that.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:unfocused said:
RAW, of course.
And I'm happy to be among those statistics! My other Canon bodies will have a new brother. When the 1DX2 comes out, they'll have a new Daddy too
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Canon certainly isn't "going on as is". I don't know what you're talking about with "10D era sensor fabs" because Canon's current cameras are far better in every way than the 10D, sensor included. Who cares what "sensor fabs" they're using as long as the image quality is excellent — which it is. All you have to do to see that is make some pictures. Canon makes some great gear, and many photographers make great pics with Canon gear. If it doesn't work for you, why the heck are you using Canon gear (if you are)?
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
It probably means it is selling quite well despite your dire predictions.
I doubt if many buyers of the 5DS/R are bothered about crop modes as, unlike the Nikon cameras, the crop only lenses (EF-s) are not supported so the functionality is greatly limited.
As for fabrication processes, it is my understanding that even though there are companies that take these sensors apart, how they are actually made, and what on, is proprietary and privileged information that I am sure you are not privy to.
I am no fanboy, but if you can't take good to superb images with the Canon system I suggest you either, buy into another manufacturer or take some lessons. I do not know of a single speciality that Canon don't have a strong professional presence. As true analytical experts regularly point out it isn't about the small differences in DR/iso/lens selection etc etc that make the differences to the images, it is about the photographers.
Upvote
0
There is quite apparently a very fine line (as shown by Canon sales figures) that while even the happiest Canon user may mildly opine about having a dynamic range more competitive with Sony (or whatever other longing there may be) it does not apparently mean they are UNHAPPY with Canon.
I am one of these. Sure, would a bit lower noise and an extra couple stops of DR be great, even if just to shut up the trolls? Yes. Does it mean my cameras have suddenly become worthless and my photography relegated to a cowpie? No. I love my system. I love my glass. People like me have a need/desire for this type of Canon body that will greatly enhance the work we already do, and we are obviously seeing a cost benefit to this beyond just a Sched C depreciation on our tax returns.
The Sony Alpha forum is already of course denouncing this camera as being inferior to the impending Sony Exmor 50MP. Frankly I couldn't care less. I'm not going to sit here and crap on the Sony. They make some very nice cameras.
But that doesn't mean I'm pissed off at Canon or their products.
I am one of these. Sure, would a bit lower noise and an extra couple stops of DR be great, even if just to shut up the trolls? Yes. Does it mean my cameras have suddenly become worthless and my photography relegated to a cowpie? No. I love my system. I love my glass. People like me have a need/desire for this type of Canon body that will greatly enhance the work we already do, and we are obviously seeing a cost benefit to this beyond just a Sched C depreciation on our tax returns.
The Sony Alpha forum is already of course denouncing this camera as being inferior to the impending Sony Exmor 50MP. Frankly I couldn't care less. I'm not going to sit here and crap on the Sony. They make some very nice cameras.
But that doesn't mean I'm pissed off at Canon or their products.
Upvote
0
There was a long post here that just *disappeared*, so I can't respond to it. Anyway ... ask this guy (Sebastiao Salgado) how much his photos were "compromised" by using "old fab" Canon sensors:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/sebastio-salgados-journey-from-brazil-to-the-world/
And if you get a chance, check out his magnificent book, Genesis.
This forum sees a constant barrage of criticism about Canon's "sensor fab". This criticism extends to how Canon chooses to "invest" and even to how Canon "thinks" or whether Canon "cares". This speculation is somehow extrapolated and imagined from a specific measure of dynamic range. I don't know anything about their factories or how they invest or what they think or care about. I don't know any photographers who ever talk about "sensor fab" or for whom "fab" is anything but an abbreviation for "faboulous". (Did anyone every talk about "film fab"?) But I do know Canon cameras pretty well and what can be done with them. The evidence is in professional work all around the world. That puts all of this "sensor fab" criticism to rest.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/sebastio-salgados-journey-from-brazil-to-the-world/
And if you get a chance, check out his magnificent book, Genesis.
This forum sees a constant barrage of criticism about Canon's "sensor fab". This criticism extends to how Canon chooses to "invest" and even to how Canon "thinks" or whether Canon "cares". This speculation is somehow extrapolated and imagined from a specific measure of dynamic range. I don't know anything about their factories or how they invest or what they think or care about. I don't know any photographers who ever talk about "sensor fab" or for whom "fab" is anything but an abbreviation for "faboulous". (Did anyone every talk about "film fab"?) But I do know Canon cameras pretty well and what can be done with them. The evidence is in professional work all around the world. That puts all of this "sensor fab" criticism to rest.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
