The 5DsR mk2

[Phil Indeblanc]

Several thoughts:

The histogram you see on the screen is based on the theoretical resultant JPEG rather than the linear RAW file, so it is difficult to judge how to adjust the exposure, particularly ETTR, from that readout. In a very low contrast situation, though, you can probably get away with it. I think there is a lot of value in trying things and gaining experience, the more of which you have with your particular camera, the better your judgment of what you can get away with should become.

I have read that ETTR is pointless except at base ISO. That might not be quite literally true for near-base settings, but maybe it is. Anyhow, if ETTR means you are doubling the ISO and quintupling the noise, then you've introduced a lot more problems than you've solved.

My experience has been that if there is any information at all in any channel of the brightest parts of the scene, then the Highlights slider in ACR (and presumably the same in LR) does a good job faking details in the other channels. The main need I've had for this, as I recall, is when I want some detail in clouds. Moving the slider way to the left can make the sky look downright threatening sometimes, which is vastly beyond the tweaking I need. So for my purposes, highlight recovery usually works better than boosting the shadows more than one stop. I'm usually not interested in bringing out the spider webs in the dark corners for interiors, and indeed I find too much attention to insignificant detail to be more of a distraction in the picture. I do however like to have detail in windows, particularly stained glass, while giving a good view of architectural details. The Highlights slider is usually not sufficient for that, for me anyway, so I shoot separate exposures for the windows and merge, such as in this picture of a chapel in Edinburgh, shot with my G7X II. I preferred the as-shot convergence over a corrected perspective. My goal is usually to make the picture look like what I saw when I was there. This printed up nicely on 13" x 19" paper, and I plan to frame it to hang in my hallway gallery when I get around to it.

Once you've been shooting Canon for sometime you understand it has highlight detail more than shadow and you expose with that in mind. I do, and I too recover.

I have been shooting Canon for about 10 years, currently using the 5Dm3 and just a year or so ago I purchased the A7RII and a Metabones adapter for my Canon lenses. I also shoor Phase One MF digibacks.

I have to say I love this Sony sensor without AA filter.
I have to say I hate this Sony smartphone.

Now if Sony ironed out the delay and lag in Mode changes, and startup time, and some of the glitchy behavior I have had (And it took a LONG time for them to make a firmware update to address a number of glitches), I would say Canon has their plate full to meet or beat the A7R3. They took care of the battery, so...

I will say the mechanical reliability is my strongest pull towards Canon.
The rest falls mostly on what you shoot.
Product: its not hard to pick the mirrorless Sony or a Phase One. which is what I shoot.
Landscape/Architectural: its not hard to pick the Sony again.
Events: This is Canon reliability, and a slight risky path for Sony shooters.
Portraits: Either one would be fine
Sports: Either one or Sony perhaps.
mirrorless makes focus MUCH nicer for the strong points above.

The sensor needs all AA removed, not a effect. It gives more 3D dimension and sharpness. Also, the way the Sony renders is really nice. I don't know if Sony makes the MFormat sensors that Hasselblad and Phase One use in their 50mpixel backs, as they ARE Sony sensors, and I do like they way the images expose.
But, its often left to indoor still use sometimes, and takes a back seat on event shoots.

 

[Deleted member 379512]

Wonder if the Nikon D850 will put enough pressure on Canon to up their game.

They are already in a dead heat with Nikon D5 vs 1DxM2 (some could argue one or other is winner but IMO these camera are very close in features)

The 5DM4 is a great camera, I think unchallenged by the Nikon

Nikon's D850, though lower in MP, than the 5Ds/sR offers a lot of advantages of the 5Ds.
It would be nice is Canon could match the D850 in areas other than MP which it has a clear lead.

Do you mean the Canon 5dmk4 is unchallenged by the Nikon D850, or that the Canon doesn't challenge the Nikon?

 

[Sporgon]

Wonder if the Nikon D850 will put enough pressure on Canon to up their game.

They are already in a dead heat with Nikon D5 vs 1DxM2 (some could argue one or other is winner but IMO these camera are very close in features)

The 5DM4 is a great camera, I think unchallenged by the Nikon

Nikon's D850, though lower in MP, than the 5Ds/sR offers a lot of advantages of the 5Ds.
It would be nice is Canon could match the D850 in areas other than MP which it has a clear lead.

Do you mean the Canon 5dmk4 is unchallenged by the Nikon D850, or that the Canon doesn't challenge the Nikon?

I guess he's meaning the 5Ds doesn't equal the D850.

My advice to anyone looking at the current 5 series cameras; don't disregard the 5Ds because of the "old tech" off-sensor ADC, and the internet emphasis on spec sheet. I was kinda going to go for the 5DIV although I don't need speed, either in terms of ISO or shutter rate, until I was at a big wedding shot by a quite well known photographer. She rated the 5DsR above the 5DIV and she was using both. I tried a 5Ds ( I want the AA filter) and bought one.

 

[amorse]

Just to be pedantic: because the ability to make a shadow brighter without introducing overpowering noise doesn’t reveal detailed in that shadow which weren’t recorded. The signal is still the signal. Exposing to the extreme end of saturation allows maximum signal and thus detail to be recorded.

My point was, the difference between jpeg histogram + 1 stop (or whatever you think is right) it surely good enough. Is the 1/3 stop (or whatever it is) by using a raw histogram really going to make or break an image?

Maybe, maybe not, but why not make it possible to truly ETTR without trial and error?

Here’s another one: let me dial in exposure time on a touch screen rather, at let me exceed 30 seconds without an extra device.

I always assumed they kept maximum exposure time to 30 seconds and required bulb mode beyond that to ensure that people couldn't lock up the camera for more than 30 seconds. I've accidentally messed up 30 second exposures in the past and then had to wait for the camera to finish before I could fix whatever error I made and try again. I can only imagine my frustration if I did that on a 5 minute exposure! At least with bulb, you have to actively confirm that you want the camera to continue exposing the scene. Kind of a nuisance to be sure, but I can understand the decision.

 

[3kramd5]

Just to be pedantic: because the ability to make a shadow brighter without introducing overpowering noise doesn’t reveal detailed in that shadow which weren’t recorded. The signal is still the signal. Exposing to the extreme end of saturation allows maximum signal and thus detail to be recorded.

My point was, the difference between jpeg histogram + 1 stop (or whatever you think is right) it surely good enough. Is the 1/3 stop (or whatever it is) by using a raw histogram really going to make or break an image?

Maybe, maybe not, but why not make it possible to truly ETTR without trial and error?

Here’s another one: let me dial in exposure time on a touch screen rather, at let me exceed 30 seconds without an extra device.

I always assumed they kept maximum exposure time to 30 seconds and required bulb mode beyond that to ensure that people couldn't lock up the camera for more than 30 seconds. I've accidentally messed up 30 second exposures in the past and then had to wait for the camera to finish before I could fix whatever error I made and try again. I can only imagine my frustration if I did that on a 5 minute exposure! At least with bulb, you have to actively confirm that you want the camera to continue exposing the scene. Kind of a nuisance to be sure, but I can understand the decision.

Could be, but you can always just turn it off rather than wait it out.

 

[docsmith]

Wonder if the Nikon D850 will put enough pressure on Canon to up their game.

They are already in a dead heat with Nikon D5 vs 1DxM2 (some could argue one or other is winner but IMO these camera are very close in features)

The 5DM4 is a great camera, I think unchallenged by the Nikon

Nikon's D850, though lower in MP, than the 5Ds/sR offers a lot of advantages of the 5Ds.
It would be nice is Canon could match the D850 in areas other than MP which it has a clear lead.

Do you mean the Canon 5dmk4 is unchallenged by the Nikon D850, or that the Canon doesn't challenge the Nikon?

If I understand the point correctly, I actually agree. The D850, because of the high MP count, now more closely matches the 5DsR and not the 5DIV. Which is odd, as I think some consider the 5Ds (R) to be "niche" cameras due to their high MP count. But Nikon just planted their #2 camera just south of that "niche."

Currently, I would put the D750 as below the 5DIV, which leaves the 5DIV unmatched or unchallenged. I am not sure what the replacment to the D750 will be (D760?), but I can see Nikon bumping it up to be more comparable to the 5DIV.

Then, Nikon and Canon would match up, or, likely more precisely, would have cameras targeting similar markets (italics mean yet to be released):

1DxII vs D5
5Ds (R) II vs D850
5DIV vs D750 II
6DII vs D610
7DII vs D500
etc

 

[ahsanford]

Currently, I would put the D750 as below the 5DIV, which leaves the 5DIV unmatched or unchallenged. I am not sure what the replacment to the D750 will be (D760?), but I can see Nikon bumping it up to be more comparable to the 5DIV.

I expect a D760 resolution bump to 30-36 MP, which squarely puts it in the 'better' bucket of their traditional good/better/best lineup. And again, 'better' will lineup competitively with one of Canon's two 'pro / high end' FF rigs with the 5D# line.

Consider: Nikon *literally* could put the 36 MP D810 sensor into a new D760 and give it the same 7/9 fps setup of the D850, offer it for $2299 and sell it directly and effectively in the 5D4 market slot. That sensor remains a formidably effective one some three years out, and 36x7 / 36x9 + tilty-flippy (something the 5D4 lacks) + a mid-level price would be a very strong value, IMHO.

And then there's the D610 line which fell off of the earth in recent memory. Bold prediction: Nikon hasn't given up on the 'good'/'entry FF' market segment, and whatever they bring to the table there in 2018 will have an on-chip sensor to thumb its nose at 6D2 owners. :

- A

 

[Deleted member 379512]

Wonder if the Nikon D850 will put enough pressure on Canon to up their game.

They are already in a dead heat with Nikon D5 vs 1DxM2 (some could argue one or other is winner but IMO these camera are very close in features)

The 5DM4 is a great camera, I think unchallenged by the Nikon

Nikon's D850, though lower in MP, than the 5Ds/sR offers a lot of advantages of the 5Ds.
It would be nice is Canon could match the D850 in areas other than MP which it has a clear lead.

Do you mean the Canon 5dmk4 is unchallenged by the Nikon D850, or that the Canon doesn't challenge the Nikon?

If I understand the point correctly, I actually agree. The D850, because of the high MP count, now more closely matches the 5DsR and not the 5DIV. Which is odd, as I think some consider the 5Ds (R) to be "niche" cameras due to their high MP count. But Nikon just planted their #2 camera just south of that "niche."

Currently, I would put the D750 as below the 5DIV, which leaves the 5DIV unmatched or unchallenged. I am not sure what the replacment to the D750 will be (D760?), but I can see Nikon bumping it up to be more comparable to the 5DIV.

Then, Nikon and Canon would match up, or, likely more precisely, would have cameras targeting similar markets (italics mean yet to be released):

1DxII vs D5
5Ds (R) II vs D850
5DIV vs D750 II
6DII vs D610
7DII vs D500
etc

I get what you mean with the 5dmk4 not having a direct competitor, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's unchallenged. Mainly due to the cost /price, I'd be more inclined to say it's simply beaten (outclassed really but that sounds a little extreme) in a number of ways by the d850, which competes well with both the 5dmk4 and the 5dsr.

Comparing it to the d750 at half its cost seems a little unfair, although I do expect the d760 etc to be more direct competition to it, if Nikon go up market with it

 

[3kramd5]

Wonder if the Nikon D850 will put enough pressure on Canon to up their game.

They are already in a dead heat with Nikon D5 vs 1DxM2 (some could argue one or other is winner but IMO these camera are very close in features)

The 5DM4 is a great camera, I think unchallenged by the Nikon

Nikon's D850, though lower in MP, than the 5Ds/sR offers a lot of advantages of the 5Ds.
It would be nice is Canon could match the D850 in areas other than MP which it has a clear lead.

Do you mean the Canon 5dmk4 is unchallenged by the Nikon D850, or that the Canon doesn't challenge the Nikon?

If I understand the point correctly, I actually agree. The D850, because of the high MP count, now more closely matches the 5DsR and not the 5DIV. Which is odd, as I think some consider the 5Ds (R) to be "niche" cameras due to their high MP count. But Nikon just planted their #2 camera just south of that "niche."

Currently, I would put the D750 as below the 5DIV, which leaves the 5DIV unmatched or unchallenged. I am not sure what the replacment to the D750 will be (D760?), but I can see Nikon bumping it up to be more comparable to the 5DIV.

Then, Nikon and Canon would match up, or, likely more precisely, would have cameras targeting similar markets (italics mean yet to be released):

1DxII vs D5
5Ds (R) II vs D850
5DIV vs D750 II
6DII vs D610
7DII vs D500
etc

D850 challenges both the 5DS and the 5D4.

 

[RGF]

Here is what I don't want in my new 5DSRII:
1. An Electronic Viewfinder. I took a close look at Sony before buying my current SR. All it took was a look through the EVF. I realize it may be a personal preference, but I like a clear optical finder. Just because we can does not mean we should.
2. In body Stabilization. From all that I have read IBIS is a poor man's image stabilization. Not cheaper, but better to have it in the lens. I really prefer the best images stabilizer of all - a tripod!
3. Video that is not the best video. If the camera had no video then I could tell the naysayers that I didn't buy the camera for video and be done with it. If it has video that is not as good as Nikon's then I have to listen to that all day - never mind that I only use the video for interviews and such. I'm not making movies, I'm creating beautiful stills.
4. An ISO of 500,000,000,000........... When I'm shooting in the dark, it's no longer about the light. No matter what camera you use, the best resolution is at the native ISO.
Here is what I want for my new SR:
1. Dynamic range equal to the Pentax 645Z or better.
2. Touch screen like the mark 4. I thought that would be a gimmick but it works well and I like it.
3. No price jump.
4. Focus stacking - I don't want the camera to actually combine the images, just control the focus and create the shots.
5. Increase flash sync by either announcing a new lens or two with leaf shutters or by bringing out a shutter that just turns the chip on or off.
6. Video better than everyone else's - even if I don't need it - so I don't have to listen to everyone complaining about Canon. (Guess everyone has forgotten who put video in the DSLR in the first place and a serious videographer can buy a camera just for doing videography.)
7. WIFI - I do like being able to download to my phone immediately and post on social media.
8. Keep the price down - The Nikon 850 is about $600 cheaper than what I paid for my SR 2 and a half years ago. I can buy a Pentax medium format now for $5500.

Good list but personal I don't shoot video and I don't see advantage of leaf shutter vs high speed synch. While video is nice occasionally, not really key to my purchase decision.

Also would like to see higher FPS and larger buffer. Also don't need an increase in MP, they already have more than enough but I suspect that Canon will increase the MP because they can.

Focus stacking would be great.

Also would like to see flags to set the beginning and end of series of bracketed or focus stacked images (plus manual control for pans). These would be extremely valuable in LR when creating stacks.

 

[jolyonralph]

Here is what I don't want in my new 5DSRII:
1. An Electronic Viewfinder. I took a close look at Sony before buying my current SR. All it took was a look through the EVF. I realize it may be a personal preference, but I like a clear optical finder. Just because we can does not mean we should.

Well, the problem is that the EVF is so much more useful 50% of the time, and less useful 50% of the time. For example, when I want to compose for black & white photography, it's so much more powerful to be able to see the image *in black and white* within the viewfinder.

And, reviewing images using the viewfinder is so much easier than on the rear screen (especially for those of us who don't have perfect vision.)

Taking one quick look at an EVF and saying it's not for you isn't really giving it a fair chance.

I have the 5DSR *and* the A7RII. Both have their benefits and both have their disadvantages. But I have to say, in general, I prefer using the EVF for everything except fast-action shooting (and I understand with the A9 onwards that's not even a problem any more).

What I'd *really* like to see is a hybrid OVF/EVF, so that in live view mode the mirror swings back and you get an EVF display. I'd even settle with the ability for the 5DSR Mark II to take an external EVF.

 

[stevelee]

In camera focus stacking is not something I would have though of or have observed in a device. Those of you with cameras or phones with that feature, please give a little detail.

I can’t imagine that it would work in the situation I find stacking the most useful, in macro photography, particularly near 1:1. I put a rail on the tripod and shift the whole camera between shots. In that range, moving the focus ring will resize the image, m asking stacking less viable.

 

[RGF]

In camera focus stacking is not something I would have though of or have observed in a device. Those of you with cameras or phones with that feature, please give a little detail.

I can’t imagine that it would work in the situation I find stacking the most useful, in macro photography, particularly near 1:1. I put a rail on the tripod and shift the whole camera between shots. In that range, moving the focus ring will resize the image, m asking stacking less viable.

I believe the new Nikon D850 has this. From the little I have heard about it, you set near and far focal points, F stop and the camera takes a series of pictures adjusting the focal distance. Not sure if that is 100% correct - you may need to specify the number of images. Not a Nikon users so information is 2nd hand and sketchy.

 

[Maiaibing]

The 5DSR Mark I hasn't really impressed me as a camera.
Maybe its my version but the 5D III and 5D IV that I have are better in terms of image quality.
It doesn't perform well as the ISO goes up.

Always sad if things don't work as expected or hoped. However, your camera or your photography is to blame here.

5DS/R makes the best image files of any Canon DSLR. Enough that you can see the difference from the 5DIV in pictures that have enough detail. 5DIII does not need to apply at all, 5DS/R is superior on each and every count (except fps).

 

[Maiaibing]

Yes, the 5DSR will give more detail, but likely at the expense of dynamic range. There is no free lunch. In good light I would say use the 5DSR, in low light the 5DIV starts to pull ahead - you can downsample the 5DSR and get closer to the DR of the 5DIV (or the 5DIII), but it is all compromises.

No. 5DS/R has excellent DR. Only at iso 100-400 is the 5DIV ahead. But 5DS/R DR is still clearly better than the 5DIII and 6DII for instance.

The DR (and noise) difference between the 5DIV and 5DS/R collapses as you turn up the iso - and you still have more detail in the 5DS/R pictures.

The 6.400 iso "limitation" of the 5DS/R is artificial. You can just crank up the iso in post to match iso 52.000 or whatever you like from the 5DIV.

 

[docsmith]

The DR (and noise) difference between the 5DIV and 5DS/R collapses as you turn up the iso - and you still have more detail in the 5DS/R pictures.

The 6.400 iso "limitation" of the 5DS/R is artificial. You can just crank up the iso in post to match iso 52.000 or whatever you like from the 5DIV.

I just bought the 5DIV. While the file size of the 5Ds(R) is still my primary issue, I did try to evaluate the two bodies, even though I was already leaning toward the 5DIV.

To my eye, I prefer the 5DIV image here:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=979&Test=2&ISO=6400&CameraComp=1074&TestComp=0&ISOComp=6400

and here:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=979&Test=2&ISO=12800&CameraComp=1074&TestComp=0&ISOComp=12800

Then, of course, there is DR downsampled to a 8MP image, the 5DIV on DXOMark.

I expect the 5DsR MII to make improvements and eliminate the gap. It would be even better to see BSI and have the 5DsR II exceed the 5DIV.

 

[privatebydesign]

It would be even better to see BSI and have the 5DsR II exceed the 5DIV.

No, BSI has not translated to 'better' IQ in the larger sensors where the pixel size, comparative to P&S's and phones, is much larger. It seems the tech works best on very small pixels and doesn't scale effectively.

5DS/R makes the best image files of any Canon DSLR.

No it doesn't.

The 1DX MII and 5D MkIV are both technically 'better' quality files, sure they don't have the detail the 5DS/R have, but that isn't the point, unless you quantify your definition of better, and that just means resolution, in which case you have a point, but that isn't how most users would quantify 'better'.

 

[docsmith]

It would be even better to see BSI and have the 5DsR II exceed the 5DIV.

No, BSI has not translated to 'better' IQ in the larger sensors where the pixel size, comparative to P&S's and phones, is much larger. It seems the tech works best on very small pixels and doesn't scale effectively.

I am no expert, but I hadn't heard the pixel size/BSI issue before. Rather, what I have read is that Nikon introduced the BSI to the D850 in part to get a bit more QE out of that sensor and BSI essentially being the last meaningful advance in QE (getting to the 80-90% range).

Looking at data, the D850 (w/BSI) scores a bit higher at lower ISO, but is the same as the 5DIV (w/o BSI) above ISO 800/1600. That may fly in the face of the above argument as I'd expect a bit better improvement across the board if BSI really was increasing QE (granted, something other than QE could be limiting factor above ISO 800).

If you know more, thoughts? If it is pixel size, at what point does it come into play with a high MP sensor? The 5DsR has a pixel size of 4.14 um. I believe an iPhone sensor is about 1.15 um (FF equivalent to 384 MP).

 

[AlanF]

It would be even better to see BSI and have the 5DsR II exceed the 5DIV.

No, BSI has not translated to 'better' IQ in the larger sensors where the pixel size, comparative to P&S's and phones, is much larger. It seems the tech works best on very small pixels and doesn't scale effectively.

5DS/R makes the best image files of any Canon DSLR.

No it doesn't.

The 1DX MII and 5D MkIV are both technically 'better' quality files, sure they don't have the detail the 5DS/R have, but that isn't the point, unless you quantify your definition of better, and that just means resolution, in which case you have a point, but that isn't how most users would quantify 'better'.

Please tell us your criteria for quantifying "better".

 

[privatebydesign]

It would be even better to see BSI and have the 5DsR II exceed the 5DIV.

No, BSI has not translated to 'better' IQ in the larger sensors where the pixel size, comparative to P&S's and phones, is much larger. It seems the tech works best on very small pixels and doesn't scale effectively.

5DS/R makes the best image files of any Canon DSLR.

No it doesn't.

The 1DX MII and 5D MkIV are both technically 'better' quality files, sure they don't have the detail the 5DS/R have, but that isn't the point, unless you quantify your definition of better, and that just means resolution, in which case you have a point, but that isn't how most users would quantify 'better'.

Please tell us your criteria for quantifying "better".

Why? What does my criteria have to do with anything?

But were we to follow popular opinion then the >1 stop of dynamic range at base iso might be important. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R

Or, even if you don't like the figures or the nature of the black box result, few argue the consistency of DxO who measure three (arbitrary) factors and score the 5D MkIV 91, the 1DX MkII 88 and the 5DSR 86. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-5DS-R___1106_1071_1009

Maybe you have an older computer and measure 'better' files as the speed at which you can view and process the images.

There is no metric the 5DS/R are 'best' at in the Canon line other than resolution, as I said, if resolution is your only criteria for measuring 'best' that's fine, but few would agree with you.