DR from 5Ds will be 2 stop better then 7D mk II

[PureClassA]

What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?

Probably none. There is no "kit" lens made that could take advantage of its high resolving capability. The only one in L land is the 24-105 f4 L IS. Good little lens. Just picked one up for $650 on ebay new. But to help debut a 50MP sensor? I wouldn't.

People buying this grade of camera aren't looking for a kit anyway. They have the high grade glass already or will buy the one(s) they need.

Every L glass made since 2010 (except the kit 24-105 I'd say) could push the upper limits of this sensor. Pre-2010, the only one I know of (based on dXO scores) is the killer 135L. That thing puts out 20 perceptual MP on a 22MP sensor (5D3). That's a resolving power of 90%, which is crazy high. 40MP on a 50MP sensor. The kit by comparison might get you 25-30 and that's isn't the foot Canon wants to put forward on this

 

[3kramd5]

Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III? That was strait from the mouth of Canon itself. I would be extremely surprised if the 5Ds had even one stop better DR, let alone two.

As as I recall, Chuck said the DR is about the same, making no mention of sensitivity (to be fair, I wasn't paying that much attention, so perhaps he did specify at low ISO).

Later, another spokesman type said something about traditionally-measured DR being the same (perhaps stop-wedge as opposed to noise measurements), but that the noise floor is lower.

Then an unnamed third party claimed a 1.5-2 stop improvement.

Personally, I suspect that what Chuck said is probably most accurate. Perhaps the noise floor is a little lower, but I don't expect 1.5 stops. And for me, that's fine. I'm happy with my 5D2/3 landscape work (I sometimes use an A7R, but generally speaking I prefer not), so I imagine I'll be happy with the 5Ds as well.

 

[Lawliet]

Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III?

That depends on whether you measure on a per pixel or per picture level.
Normally that should be closely correlated, but with the 5D3's banding the second metric looses considerably. If that got fixed the claims can both be true. Not accounting for ambiguity on the sensitivity bracket refered to.

 

[Marsu42]

traditionally-measured DR being the same (perhaps stop-wedge as opposed to noise measurements), but the noise floor is lower.

This is poppycock (I hope I've got the right word, I'm not a native speaker )... dr is what arrives in the image data, and this is the difference between noise floor (including banding which raises it) and clipping.

The only explanation I can come up with for these rumors that Canon creates FUD and leaves the hope for a magic trick, after all they're well aware how important dr is for some landscape shooters. That's probably also the reason for the fuzzy "wide dynamic range" statement in their announcement.

 

[3kramd5]

traditionally-measured DR being the same (perhaps stop-wedge as opposed to noise measurements), but the noise floor is lower.

This is poppycock (I hope I've got the right word, I'm not a native speaker )... dr is what arrives in the image data, and this is the difference between noise floor (including banding which raises it) and clipping.

That's the right word, though I suspect your english lessons are from the 1950s . These days we'd make mention of a male cow and its excrement.

In any case, what is the dynamic range of cameras which pre-date digital noise? What's the noise floor of emulsion film? I guess no unexposed negative film is truly clear so won't return black, is that the equivalent?

One can use a stop wedge to determine the total range of tones an imaging device, digital or otherwise, is capable of recording. It however isn't particularly useful in determining what kind of detail can be extracted. That's where the noise floor comes in.

In any case, this discussion is all for fun anyway. Nobody knows anything, and we're just making assumptions based on terminology. As mentioned, I expect files similar to those of the mk3, but... bigger. If the shadows have less noise, cool.

 

[Stu_bert]

I'm happy to be wrong come June, but I concur with the view that Chuck would not be sitting in an interview with DPReview going, DR broadly inline with 5D3 and high ISO noise broadly inline 7D II if there was a significant difference in low-end ISO. He would be going we've traded ISO range against improved DR in the <ISO 400 range and espousing it.

This sensor is a "version" of the 7D II, and for many people, that's what they want and it suits their photography - even landscape / studio work. Sure they might want more in terms of DR or ISO range, but right now, does Canon sit and not deliver something, or deliver as good as they can? As a business, deliver something which a good % of your userbase will buy rather than wait till you can (either technically or financially). Some won't, some will go for MF, some to Nikon, some to Sony and maybe some to other brands. But others will conclude the 5Ds suits their needs.

Point in fact, there's a article on Outdoor Photographer (Have Camera, Have Lens, Will Travel). He's a pro photographer, who took a 40D and a single lens traveling the world for 21 months.

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/have-camera-have-lens-will-travel.html

Not everyone needs the 14 stops of DR. If that's more important, in balance, to other elements of the system then ok, you need to change.

 

[privatebydesign]

Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III? That was strait from the mouth of Canon itself. I would be extremely surprised if the 5Ds had even one stop better DR, let alone two.

No that isn't what he said.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24992.msg493653#msg493653

 

[Stu_bert]

Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III? That was strait from the mouth of Canon itself. I would be extremely surprised if the 5Ds had even one stop better DR, let alone two.

No that isn't what he said.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24992.msg493653#msg493653

If there was a significant difference in it, why isn't Canon highlighting it ? Sorry Privatebydesign, I think you're looking for something that is not there. Nothing else in the literature marks a significant improvement, and I don't understand why a single CPS person would be the one to release such information? If there is better handling of noise at low ISO, why wouldn't there be comments about it?

Sorry, I would be happy if I am wrong, but no information to date really supports that bar one interview comment....

 

[Skirball]

What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?

I think they should kit it with the 24mm TS-E, just to make a statement.

 

[PureClassA]

I think the DR comments are at best inconclusive. It's not like Northlight is some fly-by-night rumor mill. If he posts something about a pre-test exhibiting 1.5-2 stops above a 1DX, I take him at his word. Whether lightroom vs DPP makes a huge difference here has yet to be told.

Canon still has 5 months to get their ducks in a row and add/change things in firmware like Dual ISO. Ok, the camera sucks at 6400 but what about Dual at 100 & 400 or 100 & 800.

There may be a few more things that surprise us between now and then and I'm sure they are gauging market reactions right now to the press release. While I don't expect hem to radically redesign the sensor between now and then, making firmware changes seems easy enough especially when they would greatly aid the very market they are trying to penetrate with such a body.

 

[PureClassA]

Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III? That was strait from the mouth of Canon itself. I would be extremely surprised if the 5Ds had even one stop better DR, let alone two.

No that isn't what he said.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24992.msg493653#msg493653

If there was a significant difference in it, why isn't Canon highlighting it ? Sorry Privatebydesign, I think you're looking for something that is not there. Nothing else in the literature marks a significant improvement, and I don't understand why a single CPS person would be the one to release such information? If there is better handling of noise at low ISO, why wouldn't there be comments about it?

Sorry, I would be happy if I am wrong, but no information to date really supports that bar one interview comment....

Actually a CPS guy DID say there was more ability to pull shadows at low ISO....

http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/02/interview-about-the-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-with-mike-burnhill/

And then we had the bit from Northlight that seems to (on the surface) substantiate this:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html

Again.... What has been said regarding low ISO DR is as of yet, inconclusive.

 

[PureClassA]

What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?

I think they just kit it with the 24mm TS-E, just to make a statement.

LOL

 

[bmwzimmer]

I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..

 

[Stu_bert]

Actually a CPS guy DID say there was more ability to pull shadows at low ISO....

http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/02/interview-about-the-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-with-mike-burnhill/

Yes, I did agree that.

And then we had the bit from Northlight that seems to (on the surface) substantiate this:

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html

Again.... What has been said regarding low ISO DR is as of yet, inconclusive.

Northlight entry is from a contact. Not from his own testing.

So, blazing new 50MP sensor, with substantial reduction in read noise at low-iso, thus increasing it's suitability for landscape photographers. Canon mention lots about 50MP in all locations. Only 1 guy from CPA knows about the low-iso read noise changes? Rest of Canon globally ? Nada, zip, zilch, nothing.

Either Canon doesn't think this is something worth telling all their people (Chuck didnt know as we've seen) and their potential customers, they've made a bit of a snafu (not unheard of), or wont result in any noticeable difference.

I'd be happy if they've improved it, but I can't marry up the lack of information about it - from the CPN site in Europe, through other sites. Happy to be wrong, but sorry, I just don't buy it. It's a version of the 7D II sensor, which for many will be all they need....

 

[Stu_bert]

I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..

I think they're being selective in their words as there are people who want more DR. There are many who are happy with the DR of Canon sensors. There are others who might not be happy, but when all other things are considered, there is insufficient elsewhere for them to change....

Tom Hogan calls it correctly. This year, Sony & Nikon will iterate their bodies to 50MP. Reading between the lines, the DR for the new sensor will be inline with the current. Not bad, 18% increase in density, same DR. Similarly for Canon to match broadly the 5D III DR with the higher density in the 5Ds sensor. Not bad either.

Until any of the camera manufacturers can figure out how to entice back some smartphone users, then they're going to hope that their market does not shrink too much, and keep their relative % share the same. So no great step-changes in 2015, the Japanese want to protect their shareholders - no great expenditure other than perhaps Sony - but I think that is more of where they are selling sensors which is attracting them, and not the camera market per-se. Sensors in the automotive business seems to be the next market Sony & others will go after....

What will be interesting, is if Sony continues to make lots of money from sensors, but not so much from cameras and lenses, will they become more and more the sensor manufacturer, and focus less on the camera side - or will the camera side stay as effectively marketing for their sensors?

 

[jrista]

Didn't Canon themselves, through Chuck Westfall, say that the 5Ds/R was going to have the same low ISO DR as the 5D III? That was strait from the mouth of Canon itself. I would be extremely surprised if the 5Ds had even one stop better DR, let alone two.

No that isn't what he said.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24992.msg493653#msg493653

If there was a significant difference in it, why isn't Canon highlighting it ? Sorry Privatebydesign, I think you're looking for something that is not there. Nothing else in the literature marks a significant improvement, and I don't understand why a single CPS person would be the one to release such information? If there is better handling of noise at low ISO, why wouldn't there be comments about it?

Sorry, I would be happy if I am wrong, but no information to date really supports that bar one interview comment....

I agree...

What are we doing here...mincing the word "equivalent"? What does equivalent mean but "equivalent": "equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc."? If there is a lower read noise floor, then it can't be equivalent, it would be "lower"...in value, amount, level, etc. Also, I'm curious what the alternative to "traditional" measurement paradigms there are...do Canon sensors somehow require a different way of measuring their signal and noise levels to be competitive? If so, why? Would that not render special tests for Canon cameras oranges in comparison to all the other apples out there? What happens when the 5Ds ends up having the same read noise levels via "traditional measurements"?


Too many conflicting statements by people at this point. Too bad we have to wait months before anyone can actually get their hands on one to do any testing, and probably months longer for the major testing outlets to perform their tests and provide some useful information. :\

 

[Marsu42]

I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..

Indeed, and in hindsight of the "100% Canon" sensor this is also the reason why their execs would rather drop dead than using a Sony sensor in one of their premium dslrs - it would be public admittance that a problem exists and loss of face.

 

[SwnSng]

I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..

+1 on this.

 

[jrista]

I think Canon is selecting their words very carefully. Canon wants you to believe nothing is wrong with the Dynamic range and ISO of their current sensors which is true to many casual users. So to say this is a considerable improvement over the 5D3 and or other models admits weakness in their current products/sensors. I don't think Canon likes to admit any weakness with products they still need to sell..

+1 on this.

I don't know that I believe that either. Why would you undersell the newer, better, more advanced, and more expensive device by claiming it is "equivalent" to an older and soon to be replaced model? The 5D IV is just around the corner, at worst Canon MIGHT lose some sales of the 5D III. They are already going to lose those sales because of the 5Ds/R announcement, and the rumors about teh 5D IV being just around the corner are going to cost more of those sales. Far more, I think, than Canon SELLING their newer cameras by stating they have significantly lower read noise/noise.


I think we also need to be clear here. In the Burnhill interview, he said there was a lower "noise floor", which is not the same thing as "lower read noise". Read noise is just one of many sources of noise. The 7D II also has a lower noise floor, but that is primarily because the dark current was reduced so much at room temperature. The 5Ds is bound to gain those same improvements from the 7D II. Additionally, the way Canon builds sensors, smaller pixels have lower absolute read noise (i.e. 12.5e- for the 7D II, but 25e- for the 6D...however both have similar DR), but they also have lower FWC. Lower read noise with a correspondingly lower FWC does NOT improve DR.


You need the ability to create a stronger signal relative to the noise in order to have more DR. That can only happen with a higher FWC paired with lower read noise. Otherwise...your still going to have the same old problem, where if you have a scene with high DR, you have to underexpose the shadows to preserve the highlights (which completely nullifies any "lower noise floor" argument.)

 

[bitm2007]

What kits lens comes with 5ds/5dsr?

In the UK WEX Photographic are offering the 5DS in six kits

TS-E 24mm f3.5L II
EF 11-24mm f4L USM
EF 85mm f1.2 L II USM
EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM
EF 24-70mm f4 L IS USM
EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM