No EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Replacements in 2017 [CR2]

[RGF]

Dont know how many posting have the 5DS I do and here are my 19 months observations.

1. As long as shutter speed is higher than say on a Canon 6D for a given focal length then Ive not seen any worse camera shake / vibration issues
2.The pictures from a detail perspective even on lenses not listed as recommended usually appear more detailed / sharper than say again the 6D
3. The weakest atribute is dynamic range, its not a good low light camera
4. File sizes are way larger and you need to upgrade your PC or Mac
5. Lightroom and Photoshop even with newer PC / Mac is slower

a. Im not sure I would want a 120MP camera without some new compression algorithm the files sizes would be a killer
b. Dynamic range needs to be significantly better certainly at a minimum 14 stops
c. Nyquist would suggest at 120MP defraction would limit the benefits particularly for landscape shooters

I mostly agree with you. I think camera shake *is* more noticeable, but only viewed 100% of course, and it can be worked around (taking more shots in a burst and choosing the best, for instance). The low light performance is as good as the 5D3 when normalised (whole image/viewed at the same output size), with better sharpness, but the ISO 12800 upper limit can be tiresome, as is the lack of 1/3 stop increments above ISO 6400. File sizes are the biggest problem, especially if dealing with multiple images in focus stacks/panorama stitches. It's very computer-intensive.

Don't know the detailed math but I suspect that unless you are pushing the resolution of a 30 MP camera, there will little difference in the IQ between 30 and 50 MP camera with similar camera shake. The shake will cause similar blurring in the image.

 

[RGF]

Sony has rumored to be announcing two pro A9 bodies. One is rumored to be 20MP and shoot around 20FPS. The other is rumored to be around 70MP?

Love to see an 8K video camera. Would give us 32 - 32 MP stills ;D Of course at 60 FPS that would be a lot of stuff to go through.

:-X

 

[ExodistPhotography]

80D (24MP x 1.6 + 24MP = 62.4)

you did the math wrong, but by luck the result is almost correct

24MP x 1.2^2=61.44MP

Actually it's 24MP x 1.6^2

But on practical purposes I do hope that at least they will not go higher than that.

That does look a lot better.. I spent an hour trying to figure out "1.2" ratio until my head started hurting. LOL

 

[ExodistPhotography]

............

I fully understand that even mediocre lenses will show a benefit from a higher resolution sensor, yes. But some 22 to 50 MP comparisons show that the degree to which a lens improves on the 50 MP canvas can vary quite a bit. On the 'lemon' lens tested at LR -- a beat up 50 f/1.4 USM -- it improved on the 50 MP sensor but not nearly as dramatically as the other higher quality lenses they tested.

And DXO, PZ would back that up. Some lenses that look quite good at 22 MP tend to show their age once they step up to 50 MP.

............

- A

Exactly..



This is one of the reasons I fully believe at this point in time Canon and anyone else for that matter should not focus on high MP then say 50 or 60MP on a 35mm camera. But instead focus on improving the quality of the images. Like improving the dynamic range to 14 stops or better, increasing the bit depth from 14 to 16bit, improving SNR of the sensors photosites (pixels). Focus on improving the AA filter so that it keeps false color out while still allowing excellent sharpness without introducing moire. Stuff like that.. This would highly improve a camera sensors more then just bumping up the MP..

 

[Antono Refa]

I'm sure I'll get more details with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, I doubt I'll get anything with the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

Personally, I'd rather invest my money in upgrading my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mk2 to mk3.

Anybody benefits from higher resolution - on a 5dsr you can print larger, with more detail, you can downsample and appear sharper or you can do extreme crops and still have perfectly detailed images, basically doubling your lens reach.

As for your bet, you'd lose:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/

Looking at photozone's review of the 24-105mm mkII, which - IQ wise - is very close to the mkI, the corner improves somewhere between negligible at the ends of the zoom range (same as for the 50mm f/1.4 in the Lens Rental review) and 33% where the lens is sharpest - 40mm f/8.

Getting 33% at best, nothing at worst, doesn't look like such a big win.

 

[PHOTOPROROCKIES]

I don't see the point of using 120 Mp on a 35mm DSLR camera. The slight vibration from the mirror slap and shutter movement would blur the image at the pixel level. Having to use mirror lockup on every shot kind of negates the reason to have a DSLR. Maybe a mirrorless studio camera would have some utility in the commercial market. I could also see some uses in robotic imaging for some manufacturing processes. How many of you have a use for such a high res camera?

At some point diffraction destroys resolution. I don't know the math so I can not say i will be f5.6 or something l like that. But between diffraction, slight camera vibration, less than stellar optics, ... not sure that images from a 120 MP camera would be noticeably better than 50 MP camera in all but a few limited scenarios.

Like to see Canon work on (make work) a foveon type sensor or reinvent the sensor totally to get better IQ (or effective resolution).

Not sure that we can get much more effective resolution from existing 35mm sensor technology with a major breakthrough or reinvention.

I'd love a Fovean style sensor in a Canon body but what are the issues behind the shutter speed dilemmas? Sigma bodies are infamous for not being able to shoot fast.

They're also very poor with high iso's. I know someone that bought the new sigma quattro h and he loves it, says ISO 100-400 it takes better images than anything he owns and the man is filthy rich, he owns a full x-series system, owns plenty pentax cameras, nikon, and sony. There isn't much he doesn't own. But if you go anything 800 and above he says it operates very poorly.

 

[Cthulhu]

I'm sure I'll get more details with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, I doubt I'll get anything with the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

Personally, I'd rather invest my money in upgrading my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mk2 to mk3.

Anybody benefits from higher resolution - on a 5dsr you can print larger, with more detail, you can downsample and appear sharper or you can do extreme crops and still have perfectly detailed images, basically doubling your lens reach.

As for your bet, you'd lose:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/

Looking at photozone's review of the 24-105mm mkII, which - IQ wise - is very close to the mkI, the corner improves somewhere between negligible at the ends of the zoom range (same as for the 50mm f/1.4 in the Lens Rental review) and 33% where the lens is sharpest - 40mm f/8.

Getting 33% at best, nothing at worst, doesn't look like such a big win.

Apples to oranges. A 50 1.4 is practically worst case scenario on a 5dsr, and the difference between a 5dmk3 and a 5dsr is much bigger than a 24-105 1 vs 2.

I am very much looking forward to a 5ds(r) 2, I highly recommend you try one so you can speak from experience.

 

[Antono Refa]

Looking at photozone's review of the 24-105mm mkII, which - IQ wise - is very close to the mkI, the corner improves somewhere between negligible at the ends of the zoom range (same as for the 50mm f/1.4 in the Lens Rental review) and 33% where the lens is sharpest - 40mm f/8.

Getting 33% at best, nothing at worst, doesn't look like such a big win.

Apples to oranges. A 50 1.4 is practically worst case scenario on a 5dsr, and the difference between a 5dmk3 and a 5dsr is much bigger than a 24-105 1 vs 2.

I am very much looking forward to a 5ds(r) 2, I highly recommend you try one so you can speak from experience.

As the photozone review shows, the 24-105mm f/4 corners at the ends (24mm & 105mm) gain negligible (<5%) improvement with 50MP sensor.

Just like the 50mm f/1.4's corners.

I would benefit if I used it around it's sweet spot, from 35-70mm closing the aperture a stop or two, limiting me to about what I had with my old Minolta Dynax film camera's kit lens.

I like the 24-105mm because of it's focal length range, and I use it often at both ends, so thanks, but I'd rather spend my money on new lenses.

 

[Diko]

...But something like 250MP would be horridness and not usable due to camera shake and diffraction cause by the atmosphere its self. This is why even Med Format does not go above 100MP at the moment. It becomes a point where more is not helping and its better for focus on quality other then quantity. ..

R sure about that? I mean MF not going above 100MPs?

 

[ahsanford]

...But something like 250MP would be horridness and not usable due to camera shake and diffraction cause by the atmosphere its self. This is why even Med Format does not go above 100MP at the moment. It becomes a point where more is not helping and its better for focus on quality other then quantity. ..

R sure about that? I mean MF not going above 100MPs?

+1. MF will continue to increase resolution, as will FF, APS-C, and so on. I have yet to see the definitive thesis that says 'after 100 MP, you are wasting your time because of (insert reason here).'

Photographers hate to hear what they do or don't need ("you'll never see any advantage over a 20 MP rig", "you'd need to print billboard-sized to appreciate that", "hard drives are expensive", etc.) -- they know their needs and for some folks, resolution is top of the list.

As far as too high a resolution creating new problems, for those that wish to pursue it, they just need to adapt to what all that resolution needs to shine. That might mean getting lenses of a higher quality, that might mean changing our 1/FL sort of rules for handheld shutter speed, that might mean buying larger hard drives, etc.

It also might mean that manufacturers need to give us new tech to deliver on the promise of all those pixels, like what Canon did with shutter delay on the 5DS.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

............

I fully understand that even mediocre lenses will show a benefit from a higher resolution sensor, yes. But some 22 to 50 MP comparisons show that the degree to which a lens improves on the 50 MP canvas can vary quite a bit. On the 'lemon' lens tested at LR -- a beat up 50 f/1.4 USM -- it improved on the 50 MP sensor but not nearly as dramatically as the other higher quality lenses they tested.

And DXO, PZ would back that up. Some lenses that look quite good at 22 MP tend to show their age once they step up to 50 MP.

............

- A

Exactly..



This is one of the reasons I fully believe at this point in time Canon and anyone else for that matter should not focus on high MP then say 50 or 60MP on a 35mm camera. But instead focus on improving the quality of the images. Like improving the dynamic range to 14 stops or better, increasing the bit depth from 14 to 16bit, improving SNR of the sensors photosites (pixels). Focus on improving the AA filter so that it keeps false color out while still allowing excellent sharpness without introducing moire. Stuff like that.. This would highly improve a camera sensors more then just bumping up the MP..

you do all of that by increasing the MP's.. :

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I don't think this is a valid way to look at it because (hear me out) - even the lenses which come the closest (new sigma 85mm art score a 40 "pmpix" score on DXO) still also fall short of the total megapixel count of much lower resolution cameras for the same score. So I think there's more to it than just saying "this lens can't handle 50mpix as it is" , because it also can't handle 30, or 22, or 20, on a 5DIV,3,etc. Despite handling 40 on a 5DSR

You should be aware that the DXO score is for a given sensor, and as the number of photosites increases, so does the mpix score. Its not a lens property, but a lens plus sensor property and only good for a particular lens in conjunction with a particular sensor.

This illustrates why DXO scores are criticized so much, they don't really tell you anything about a lens or about how it might perform on a future sensor. And, they confuse people.

 

[jeffa4444]

I would encourage those interested in Nyquist, line pairs per mm and pixel pitch read some of the papers Schneider Optics put out they pretty much sum it up.

 

[tr573]

I don't think this is a valid way to look at it because (hear me out) - even the lenses which come the closest (new sigma 85mm art score a 40 "pmpix" score on DXO) still also fall short of the total megapixel count of much lower resolution cameras for the same score. So I think there's more to it than just saying "this lens can't handle 50mpix as it is" , because it also can't handle 30, or 22, or 20, on a 5DIV,3,etc. Despite handling 40 on a 5DSR

You should be aware that the DXO score is for a given sensor, and as the number of photosites increases, so does the mpix score. Its not a lens property, but a lens plus sensor property and only good for a particular lens in conjunction with a particular sensor.

This illustrates why DXO scores are criticized so much, they don't really tell you anything about a lens or about how it might perform on a future sensor. And, they confuse people.

Correct, which is why I'm saying that using them to decide "this lens barely handles 50MP, so how could it handle 100" is a flawed premise. Because one could have said "it barely handles 23, how is it going to handle 50" before the 5DS duo came out, and then lo and behold...

 

[ahsanford]

Correct, which is why I'm saying that using them to decide "this lens barely handles 50MP, so how could it handle 100" is a flawed premise. Because one could have said "it barely handles 23, how is it going to handle 50" before the 5DS duo came out, and then lo and behold...

We're stuck quoting DXO for resolution as they appear to be the only show in town that systematically re-tests things when a new sensor comes out. (I hate that, btw -- I trust them as far as I can throw them.)

40/50 (in their parlance) is actually a very strong result -- only 5 lenses in total have cleared that bar in the EF mount. The notion that "not getting a full score = the lens isn't 'rated' for the sensor" is absurd, I hear you.

• 
  Take the 35L II, a lens that scores an 18/22 on a 5D3 and a 37/50 on a 5DS would certainly appear to be a lens that would fare well on a yet higher resolution sensor, i.e. that lens has not 'peaked' and will certainly do better than 37/75 on a future 75MP sensor.
  
  
• But the 50 f/1.4 USM, a lens that scores a 17/22 on a 5D3 and only pulls in a 22/50 on a 5DS, may indeed be plateauing to the point that such a lens won't benefit nearly as much from a higher resolution sensor, and that falls right in line with what Roger at LR was showing with his first 50 MP comparisons: the 50 f/1.4 USM only saw a tiny bump in final output on the 5DS and 5DS R versus what better lenses experienced.

So, begrudgingly [throw up in mouth sound] I think DXO -- as battered bias-wise and method-wise as they are -- does offer value to generate some high-level / crude insights for how future-proofed your glass might be.

- A

 

[tr573]

Correct, which is why I'm saying that using them to decide "this lens barely handles 50MP, so how could it handle 100" is a flawed premise. Because one could have said "it barely handles 23, how is it going to handle 50" before the 5DS duo came out, and then lo and behold...

We're stuck quoting DXO for resolution as they appear to be the only show in town that systematically re-tests things when a new sensor comes out. (I hate that, btw -- I trust them as far as I can throw them.)

40/50 (in their parlance) is actually a very strong result -- only 5 lenses in total have cleared that bar in the EF mount. The notion that "not getting a full score = the lens isn't 'rated' for the sensor" is absurd, I hear you.

• 
  Take the 35L II, a lens that scores an 18/22 on a 5D3 and a 37/50 on a 5DS would certainly appear to be a lens that would fare well on a yet higher resolution sensor, i.e. that lens has not 'peaked' and will certainly do better than 37/75 on a future 75MP sensor.
  
  
• But the 50 f/1.4 USM, a lens that scores a 17/22 on a 5D3 and only pulls in a 22/50 on a 5DS, may indeed be plateauing to the point that such a lens won't benefit nearly as much from a higher resolution sensor, and that falls right in line with what Roger at LR was showing with his first 50 MP comparisons: the 50 f/1.4 USM only saw a tiny bump in final output on the 5DS and 5DS R versus what better lenses experienced.

So, begrudgingly [throw up in mouth sound] I think DXO -- as battered bias-wise and method-wise as they are -- does offer value to generate some high-level / crude insights for how future-proofed your glass might be.

- A

So here's the other problem with that (I know, it just keeps on coming ) - Those numbers (as far as I know) are for wide open performance. Which we know, is quite dismal on the 50/1.4. BUT, you stop that lens down , f/4-f/8 and it resolves about as much as you could want. This is pretty much the case for any of the simple double gauss lenses (The 50/1.2 as an exception) - wide open performance suffers from such a simple under-corrected design, but stopped down they are remarkably sharp across the whole frame.

Which means that in that zone, you'll still reap benefits from higher resolution sensors.

 

[ahsanford]

So here's the other problem with that (I know, it just keeps on coming ) - Those numbers (as far as I know) are for wide open performance. Which we know, is quite dismal on the 50/1.4. BUT, you stop that lens down , f/4-f/8 and it resolves about as much as you could want. This is pretty much the case for any of the simple double gauss lenses (The 50/1.2 as an exception) - wide open performance suffers from such a simple under-corrected design, but stopped down they are remarkably sharp across the whole frame.

Which means that in that zone, you'll still reap benefits from higher resolution sensors.

Actually: "The DxOMark resolution score shows sharpness performance of a lens-camera combination averaged over its entire focal length and aperture ranges."

This came up rather famously in how they declared the 35L II to be less sharp than the 35 Art (on the 5D3 at the time) when their tests showed them to be all but identical sharpness-wise. Upon further review, the fact the 35L II stopped down to f/22 while the Art only stopped down to f/16 was the sole difference -- the f/22 results for the 35L II pulled down the average.

Again, a single sharpness score for a lens is in itself somewhat inane, so I only use DXO for the really high-level read on how resolution may / may not be rewarded with the lens in question.

- A

 

[tr573]

Actually: "The DxOMark resolution score shows sharpness performance of a lens-camera combination averaged over its entire focal length and aperture ranges."

This came up rather famously in how they declared the 35L II to be less sharp than the 35 Art (on the 5D3 at the time) when their tests showed them to be all but identical sharpness-wise. Upon further review, the fact the 35L II stopped down to f/22 while the Art only stopped down to f/16 was the sole difference -- the f/22 results for the 35L II pulled down the average.

Again, a single sharpness score for a lens is in itself somewhat inane, so I only use DXO for the really high-level read on how resolution may / may not be rewarded with the lens in question.

- A

That is so astoundingly dumb.

 

[rrcphoto]

I would encourage those interested in Nyquist, line pairs per mm and pixel pitch read some of the papers Schneider Optics put out they pretty much sum it up.

unless they consider observer distance and sensor magnification they are about as useful as yesterday's used toilet paper.

Of course they want to tell you that the sharpest glass, is ABSOLUTELY necessary - it's in their best interests.

however it's not, unless - you are reaching the ends of resolving power because of a) extreme cropping b) extreme image magnification with unrealistic observer distances.

otherwise common sense would tell you that unless you are at the extreme boundaries from above, you are simply oversampling. if you are oversampling, you are improving your "image" quality and letting the idiots worry about how a 7 foot wide print would look from 18 inches away on their monitor, because you don't care.

 

[M_S]

Any news on the 5dSR Mark 2?