Review - Do You Need or Want 50mp? Canon EOS 5DS R

[FramerMCB]

The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.

Having read your review and others' reviews, along with users posting here, I would say that this Canon model is an awesome camera and for those with experience (i.e. good technique, or willing to learn/practice it) and the need/money, it would be a good-to-great investment. I take your advice, as seriously good advice, that this model would be a great-to-outstanding addition to any photographer's kit for those times and situations where you could make use of it - landscapes, far-distant wildlife, portraiture, studio work, and serious macro, etc.

I find all of these comments to be helpful/beneficial, as well as interesting. For those using this model and sharing/posting your experience here...THANK YOU!!! And to Dustin...keep up the excellent, real-world experience reviews. They are much appreciated.

 

[AlanF]

The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.

You can say that about any good camera - just not for everyone.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.

You can say that about any good camera - just not for everyone.

Perhaps, but the extreme nature of this particular camera makes that more true than, say, the 5D3.

 

[AlanF]

The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.

You can say that about any good camera - just not for everyone.

Perhaps, but the extreme nature of this particular camera makes that more true than, say, the 5D3.

More true than the 1DX II or 7D II?

 

[bholliman]

First off, thanks Dustin for another excellent review. I read and watch all your reviews and enjoy your real world perspective on gear.

I've owned a 5DsR for 9-months and absolutely love it. I ended up selling my 5D Mk3 after owning the 5DsR for a few months since I found the SR did everything the Mk 3 could do, only better. I still have a 6D that I use as a back-up body and for low light situations, but I find I use the 5DsR 90% of the time now. I don't consider it a niche camera at all. For me its my every day camera that I use for almost everything.

The only minor negative from my perspective is the large file size and somewhat slower processing time, but that is a trade off I can easily live with. Storage and memory is cheap these days. Personally, I'm glad it doesn't have WiFi, NFC, GPS, etc. those are features I would never use and would just un-necessarily bump up the price. I also don't find the noise on higher ISO pictures to be much of a problem. Yes, the images are noisier than my 6D or 5D3 images at similar ISO settings, but I find it cleans up easily in PP and when the images are downsized, I don't see much difference in my downsized 5DsR images when compared to my initially cleaner 6D files up to ISO3200.

About the "cant get sharp images-talk"; sure, there is a point in what they are saying. i usually aim for ´focal length * 2´ to get sharp images (when not having a tripod or image stabilization).
If i did go slower and did get unsharp images, the images is only unsharp at 100%. Scaled down to the size of a mk3 or 6d they are just as sharp.

+1 I think the arguments about difficulty of getting sharp images due to the smaller pixels is over-emphasized. Yes, you do need better technique and faster shutter speeds to get razor sharp images, but modern image stabilization mitigates much of that. With my 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS lenses, I'm able to get pixel sharp images hand held at as low as 1/15 second fairly consistently.

The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.

You can say that about any good camera - just not for everyone.

Perhaps, but the extreme nature of this particular camera makes that more true than, say, the 5D3.

More true than the 1DX II or 7D II?

The 5Ds(R) isn't for everybody, but no camera body is. It offers strengths and weaknesses, its nice to have options to choose from. I'm sure Canon will sell many more 5D3's and 5D4's, but I don't think that necessarily makes the 5Ds(R) a niche camera any more than any other body Canon offers.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.

You can say that about any good camera - just not for everyone.

Perhaps, but the extreme nature of this particular camera makes that more true than, say, the 5D3.

More true than the 1DX II or 7D II?

The price of the 1Dx II makes it out of the conversation for most users, so I'll cede that one to you. I would say yes to the 7DII, though. I don't see anything particularly extreme about it, and a lot of people will choose to own it because it is the most robust APS-C camera and isn't overly expensive.

 

[AlanF]

The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.

You can say that about any good camera - just not for everyone.

Perhaps, but the extreme nature of this particular camera makes that more true than, say, the 5D3.

More true than the 1DX II or 7D II?

The price of the 1Dx II makes it out of the conversation for most users, so I'll cede that one to you. I would say yes to the 7DII, though. I don't see anything particularly extreme about it, and a lot of people will choose to own it because it is the most robust APS-C camera and isn't overly expensive.

The price of the 7DII is out of the conversation for most users - most buy a Rebel or less. The fact is that CR followers are mainly niche Canonistas, many of whom have 1DXs and 5DSs. You might have missed the post of the cameras amassed by Getty for the Olympics, they were all 1DX IIs and 5DS Rs, which is what excites us on CR.

 

[TheJock]

The discussion here certainly reflects the mildly divisive nature of the camera itself. It is a good camera...just not for everyone.

You can say that about any good camera - just not for everyone.

I completely forgot to say a thank you to Dustin for his excellent article, they're always so informative so thanks Dustin.

Alan F, you have a spectacular line up of lenses in your Sig, and as I've seen many of your excellent images on birds, how does the 5DSr compare to the 7DII with that mighty Sigma 150-600??
Is Moire more noticeable within birds plumage when you heavily crop a 5DSr image? I'm very interested in your opinion on that.

 

[scyrene]

I don't consider it a niche camera. I upgraded from the 5D3 - very quickly I've started using the 5Ds all the time, with my older body as an emergency backup.

The larger file sizes are the only major drawback. You can work around it - get the best memory card, maybe upgrade your computer - although that adds a fair bit of cost. Other than that, the upper ISO limit is a little low, although you can shoot at 12800 and boost the exposure in post, and the files can take a bit more pushing than the 5D3's could. If you're after ISO 50k+ neither of these bodies is really ideal. Finally, the 5Ds has a slightly slower maximum fps, but I found upgrading my memory card from a mediocre SD to a good quality CF the newer camera was actually snappier - of course that's not gonna be most people's experience. However, few will notice the difference of ~1fps between the two. Again, if you need a much higher speed, the 5D series isn't ideal.

My conclusion is, if the 5D3 suits your needs, the 5Ds/r will too, and they function almost identically, so long as you can deal with much higher file sizes. Added features - especially the time lapse function - make this a worthy replacement for what I do.

 

[Refurb7]

I'm in the category of "Don't need 50mp". The 5D3 provides all of the resolution I want. I honestly don't want to upgrade anything. Maybe someday if the price of the 5Ds/r really comes down.

 

[Hector1970]

Thanks Dustin for a very fair and balanced review.
I think it will be helpful for people thinking of buying it.
I have one for about 10 months and I many similar thoughts on it as a camera.

I'd agree if you are not wanting 50MP the 5D III (or 6D) are all you would need.
The File size does have a big impact.
I changed all my computer gear to cope with them.
My old PC's / Laptop were just too slow to cope.
Storage (at the rate I shoot pictures) is a real issue too.
A heavy days shooting results in a 100GB of data. You need a big hard drive and big back up hard drives.
It all costs, a 5DSR increases your costs.

The ISO performance I have found frustrating. I don't like the noise it produces. The 5DIII noise is easier to deal with.

For a good while I was quite disappointed with the 5DSR but the more I used it the more I played to its strength.
I used it heavily for 10 days in Iceland and it performed excellently.
Its great for Landscape, its worth using it on a tripod.
Shadow recovery is very good.
It's an excellent studio camera.

So my final conclusion is that it is a very good camera, the big files leave alot of leeway for cropping. The High MP can be very handy at times. It's a great camera to have in my arsenal .
It will be interesting if the 5D IV is 30mp will it kill off interest in the 5DSR.

 

[hajiaru]

I've had the 5Ds since last September. For most of my shots, I guess 12 megapixels would be more than enough. However, I've taken a couple of pictures with the 5Ds that I've printed in 120x80 cm, that look awesome. They wouldn't be that good with a 20 megapixel camera.

you need special expensive lenses to get 50 megapixel. what lense did you use ?

 

[Jopa]

I've had the 5Ds since last September. For most of my shots, I guess 12 megapixels would be more than enough. However, I've taken a couple of pictures with the 5Ds that I've printed in 120x80 cm, that look awesome. They wouldn't be that good with a 20 megapixel camera.

you need special expensive lenses to get 50 megapixel. what lense did you use ?

Pretty much any lens benefits from the 50mpx sensor, some quite significantly, some not much, but still...
Check this out: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/

With the big whites results are mind blowing IMO. I tried it also with the Otus 85, that one is pain in the b@tt, you need a LV magnifier for precise focusing.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/omproject
https://www.flickr.com/photos/maximenco
(some pics are occasionally taken with my old a7r2)

 

[Larsskv]

I've had the 5Ds since last September. For most of my shots, I guess 12 megapixels would be more than enough. However, I've taken a couple of pictures with the 5Ds that I've printed in 120x80 cm, that look awesome. They wouldn't be that good with a 20 megapixel camera.

you need special expensive lenses to get 50 megapixel. what lense did you use ?

I have mainly L lenses, but also the Sigma 20 ART, Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS and 35mm f/2 IS. I really like that 28mm!

The large prints I have made were all taken with the 16-35 f4 L IS, which is the lens I use the most when hiking.

 

[Maiaibing]

My last point would be that the continued claims that you cannot hand hold the 5DS R and get sharp pictures is false. Is it more demanding than a 5D MKIII?

The claim is complete BS and you have to wonder why Dustin does not make it clear: sharpness is 100% the same handheld as with a 5DIII - 100%. However, if you use a stable setup such as a good tripod it can produce far sharper pictures than you can ever make with a 5DIII. So much for that downside.

Worse is that Dustin is plain and simply wrong on the noise of the 5DS/R and it does him very little credit to write that the 5DS/R has a disadvantage here compared to the 5DIII.

Noise is better on the 5DS/R than the 5DIII. And you do not have to do anything - zero - to getter better results. All this nonsense about "downsampling" has completely confused people.

Fact is this: if you are looking at the same picture from a 5DIII and a 5DS/R on a screen or in print the 5DS/R will always have at least as good - and very often - better noise than the picture taken with a 5DIII. And you do not have to do anything at all with the 5DS/R picture to achieve this. Its only if you view a larger 5DS/R picture than the 5DIII picture you notice anything. But hey! - that's of course a totally unfair way of comparing the noise in two pictures of the same subject.

When it comes to the iso-settings of the 5DS/R I'd expect someone who claims to be a reviewer to get it right: you can shoot the 5DS/R @ iso 12.800 and adjust in post to iso 100.000+ or 350.000+ or 1.000.000+ iso with the same results as you get with a 5DIII. Actually better, because even if noise will be very much the same banding is better (less) on the 5DS/R at these extremes.

Fact is, that for a photographer (not video) the one and only downside of shooting with a 5DS/R against a 5DII is 5 vs 6 fps - in my view a non-essential difference: they are both too slow if speed is your thing.

Everything else is better on the image side, were it really counts, color, DR, noise, WB, anti-flicker etc. And of course the 50MB that allows you to do so much more with your pictures.

On the non-image side seems odd to me that Dustin does not mention that the 5DS/R has much better AF than the 5DIII - including being able to autofocus down to ev-3.

5DS/R is not a perfect camera. No camera is or will ever be. But in the very direct comparision Dustin chooses with the 5DIII I cannot imagine even one single situation were the 5DS/R would not be the better choice than a 5DIII. But if anyone can imagine such a situation it would be interesting.

Building his premise on this assumption I can only conclude that the reviewer went into the testing and review with a firm pre-determined conclusion in his mind.

 

[privatebydesign]

My last point would be that the continued claims that you cannot hand hold the 5DS R and get sharp pictures is false. Is it more demanding than a 5D MKIII?

The claim is complete BS and you have to wonder why Dustin does not make it clear: sharpness is 100% the same handheld as with a 5DIII - 100%. However, if you use a stable setup such as a good tripod it can produce far sharper pictures than you can ever make with a 5DIII. So much for that downside.

Worse is that Dustin is plain and simply wrong on the noise of the 5DS/R and it does him very little credit to write that the 5DS/R has a disadvantage here compared to the 5DIII.

Noise is better on the 5DS/R than the 5DIII. And you do not have to do anything - zero - to getter better results. All this nonsense about "downsampling" has completely confused people.

Fact is this: if you are looking at the same picture from a 5DIII and a 5DS/R on a screen or in print the 5DS/R will always have at least as good - and very often - better noise than the picture taken with a 5DIII. And you do not have to do anything at all with the 5DS/R picture to achieve this. Its only if you view a larger 5DS/R picture than the 5DIII picture you notice anything. But hey! - that's of course a totally unfair way of comparing the noise in two pictures of the same subject.

When it comes to the iso-settings of the 5DS/R I'd expect someone who claims to be a reviewer to get it right: you can shoot the 5DS/R @ iso 12.800 and adjust in post to iso 100.000+ or 350.000+ or 1.000.000+ iso with the same results as you get with a 5DIII. Actually better, because even if noise will be very much the same banding is better (less) on the 5DS/R at these extremes.

Fact is, that for a photographer (not video) the one and only downside of shooting with a 5DS/R against a 5DII is 5 vs 6 fps - in my view a non-essential difference: they are both too slow if speed is your thing.

Everything else is better on the image side, were it really counts, color, DR, noise, WB, anti-flicker etc. And of course the 50MB that allows you to do so much more with your pictures.

On the non-image side seems odd to me that Dustin does not mention that the 5DS/R has much better AF than the 5DIII - including being able to autofocus down to ev-3.

5DS/R is not a perfect camera. No camera is or will ever be. But in the very direct comparision Dustin chooses with the 5DIII I cannot imagine even one single situation were the 5DS/R would not be the better choice than a 5DIII. But if anyone can imagine such a situation it would be interesting.

Building his premise on this assumption I can only conclude that the reviewer went into the testing and review with a firm pre-determined conclusion in his mind.

That is all well and good, but presupposes you are going to use the 5DS/R output exactly the same as the 5D MkIII output, which is kinda pointless to my mind.

 

[AlanF]

My last point would be that the continued claims that you cannot hand hold the 5DS R and get sharp pictures is false. Is it more demanding than a 5D MKIII?

The claim is complete BS and you have to wonder why Dustin does not make it clear: sharpness is 100% the same handheld as with a 5DIII - 100%. However, if you use a stable setup such as a good tripod it can produce far sharper pictures than you can ever make with a 5DIII. So much for that downside.

Worse is that Dustin is plain and simply wrong on the noise of the 5DS/R and it does him very little credit to write that the 5DS/R has a disadvantage here compared to the 5DIII.

Noise is better on the 5DS/R than the 5DIII. And you do not have to do anything - zero - to getter better results. All this nonsense about "downsampling" has completely confused people.

Fact is this: if you are looking at the same picture from a 5DIII and a 5DS/R on a screen or in print the 5DS/R will always have at least as good - and very often - better noise than the picture taken with a 5DIII. And you do not have to do anything at all with the 5DS/R picture to achieve this. Its only if you view a larger 5DS/R picture than the 5DIII picture you notice anything. But hey! - that's of course a totally unfair way of comparing the noise in two pictures of the same subject.

When it comes to the iso-settings of the 5DS/R I'd expect someone who claims to be a reviewer to get it right: you can shoot the 5DS/R @ iso 12.800 and adjust in post to iso 100.000+ or 350.000+ or 1.000.000+ iso with the same results as you get with a 5DIII. Actually better, because even if noise will be very much the same banding is better (less) on the 5DS/R at these extremes.

Fact is, that for a photographer (not video) the one and only downside of shooting with a 5DS/R against a 5DII is 5 vs 6 fps - in my view a non-essential difference: they are both too slow if speed is your thing.

Everything else is better on the image side, were it really counts, color, DR, noise, WB, anti-flicker etc. And of course the 50MB that allows you to do so much more with your pictures.

On the non-image side seems odd to me that Dustin does not mention that the 5DS/R has much better AF than the 5DIII - including being able to autofocus down to ev-3.

5DS/R is not a perfect camera. No camera is or will ever be. But in the very direct comparision Dustin chooses with the 5DIII I cannot imagine even one single situation were the 5DS/R would not be the better choice than a 5DIII. But if anyone can imagine such a situation it would be interesting.

Building his premise on this assumption I can only conclude that the reviewer went into the testing and review with a firm pre-determined conclusion in his mind.

+1
As pointed out here and in earlier posts, the higher pixel sensor generally outperforms the lower pixel one under good conditions and is generally not worse under sub-optimal conditions. DxO has compared the two in:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___1009_795

If you don't like dxo, go to Bill Claff who shows the 5DS R has better dynamic range than the 5DIII etc
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

The AF on the 5DS R is even better than that on the 5DIII, being next generation, and I find it better.

The only real downsides of the 5DS R are large file sizes and price.

 

[bholliman]

5DS/R is not a perfect camera. No camera is or will ever be. But in the very direct comparision Dustin chooses with the 5DIII I cannot imagine even one single situation were the 5DS/R would not be the better choice than a 5DIII. But if anyone can imagine such a situation it would be interesting.

The only real downsides of the 5DS R are large file sizes and price.

I agree with these comments. I owned a 5D3 and 6D last fall when I purchased a 5DsR. I did lots of side-by-side shooting with all three cameras and decided to sell the 5D3 and keep the 6D as a back-up/2nd body since I felt it was a better compliment to the 5DsR. The 5DsR is a significant overall improvement over the 5D3 in several areas that are important to me:

• resolution/sharpness
• autofocus
• files that are easy to work with in post (noise that cleans up easily, incredible ability to crop)
• exposure compensation in manual mode

The only, minor, downside is the large file size that slows down PP a little. But with a fast computer, plenty of memory and cheap storage, that issue is minimized.

 

[Maiaibing]

I agree with these comments. I owned a 5D3 and 6D last fall when I purchased a 5DsR. I did lots of side-by-side shooting with all three cameras and decided to sell the 5D3 and keep the 6D as a back-up/2nd body since I felt it was a better compliment to the 5DsR.

Indeed, exactly my own situation.

 

[Perio]

I would love to get 5dsr mark ii to complement my Leica S. But I guess it'll take another 1-2 years for Canon to release it.