The 5DsR mk2

[jolyonralph]

But were we to follow popular opinion then the >1 stop of dynamic range at base iso might be important.

But what if you compare the dynamic range once you downsample the images from 50mpx down to the native sizes of the 1DXII and the 5DIV? I think especially in the former case the DR and noise issues on the 5DSR would simply disappear. Plus, of course, no low-pass filter, and reducing the effect of the bayer filter due to the resizing operation

The 1DXII is much faster than the 5DSR. But it doesn't take better quality images. And it's even debatable whether the 5DIV does or not (I've used the 1DXII but not the 5DIV so I can't speak from experience with that one)

 

[privatebydesign]

But were we to follow popular opinion then the >1 stop of dynamic range at base iso might be important.

But what if you compare the dynamic range once you downsample the images from 50mpx down to the native sizes of the 1DXII and the 5DIV? I think especially in the former case the DR and noise issues on the 5DSR would simply disappear. Plus, of course, no low-pass filter, and reducing the effect of the bayer filter due to the resizing operation

The 1DXII is much faster than the 5DSR. But it doesn't take better quality images. And it's even debatable whether the 5DIV does or not (I've used the 1DXII but not the 5DIV so I can't speak from experience with that one)

I believe my own eyes, I bought 1DX MkII's because the capability of working shadow detail is a step up with the on sensor ADC, the 5D MkIV also has this whereas the 5DS/R doesn't. If you can't see it then that's fine, if you think reducing a 5DSR to 20MP gives you the same malleability then also fine, I don't.

I do believe the 1DX MkII images are "better quality images" than out of the 5DSR. See the normalized screen shots below of ultimate shadow detail comparing a 5D MkIV and 5DSR, and 1DX MkII and 5DSR, the deeper you go the bigger the difference, this is the same as lifting shadows and the 1DX MkII and 5D MkIV are markedly better than the 5DS.

I am very interested in getting a 5DSR MkII but only if it has on sensor ADC electronics, and certainly not to downsample it.

Bill Claff's DR figures as linked above are normalized for sensor CoC so pixel size does't factor into the >1 stop of difference between the 5DSR snd the two newer cameras.

"Reducing the effects of the Bayer filter" amount to a theoretical improvement in color rendition that is not even measurable at those reduction ratios and is, as can be seen in the images below, vastly overwhelmed by the additional noise.

 

[AdjustedInCamera]

Personally hoping for a Canon version of the d850.

Best sensor; high res; tilty-flippy screen.

Price point £3k - £4k

Seeing patents and product announcements for lots of other things.

Why not release a camera that will sell like hot cakes?

 

[ahsanford]

Personally hoping for a Canon version of the d850.
Best sensor; high res; tilty-flippy screen.
Price point £3k - £4k
...
Why not release a camera that will sell like hot cakes?

Sure, it would be a great camera. But Canon has convinced the market it should pay north of $3k for two different higher end non-gripped FF bodies -- the 5D4 and 5DS. So offering that rig you spoke of above would take the legs out of the 5D4, one would think.

Consider: if Canon...

• ...has been #1 for how long? 14 years?
• ...has weathered an onslaught of better spec-per-dollar competition and remained #1.
• ...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet it does not seem to have hurt their sales.
• ...uniquely doesn't go with the good/better/best gameplan of Sony and Nikon's non-gripped FF bodies.

...changing their approach to FF bodies to look like two companies that continue to fail to steal their business doesn't look terribly wise. Sure, we'd love such a super camera like the D850 or the A7R3 in a Canon version, but Canon knows the market so much better than we do. Perhaps it's more profitable for them not to give us what we (on an internet forum) want and instead to invest in the next DPAF, anti-flicker, thumb touchscreen AF while eyes are on the on the VF, etc. technology that the whole platform can use.

I am not for a second saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" nearly so much as (a) switching to good/better/best isn't warranted as they haven't lost share to such competitive approaches and (b) Canon's just smarter than investing in things other than spec sheets: quality, reliability, EF portfolio, unmet needs that don't make the spec sheet but they still figure out, etc.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

TL/DR version of the last post: spec sheets don't fully capture the value proposition of a camera, and Canon knows this much much much better than we do.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

• ...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet it does not seem to have hurt their sales.

- A

I’d venture to say it might have: their sales could have been even stronger than they were.

 

[Loswr]

• ...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet it does not seem to have hurt their sales.

- A

I’d venture to say it might have: their sales could have been even stronger than they were.

I'd venture to say you have no way of knowing that, probably no one does (not even Canon, although they are in the best position to guess). But it's important to remember that sales are important, but revenue and profit moreso. If they sell 5% fewer units, but in-house sensor production means 10% more profit, that's a win.

 

[3kramd5]

• ...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet it does not seem to have hurt their sales.

- A

I’d venture to say it might have: their sales could have been even stronger than they were.

I'd venture to say you have no way of knowing that, probably no one does (not even Canon, although they are in the best position to guess). But it's important to remember that sales are important, but revenue and profit moreso. If they sell 5% fewer units, but in-house sensor production means 10% more profit, that's a win.

“Might” and “could” being the operative terms in my post. That was sorta my impetus for posting, if not stated: nobody can state “such and such didn’t hurt sales,” we’d need a ceteris paribus parallel universe to conclude such.

 

[Loswr]

• ...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet it does not seem to have hurt their sales.

- A

I’d venture to say it might have: their sales could have been even stronger than they were.

I'd venture to say you have no way of knowing that, probably no one does (not even Canon, although they are in the best position to guess). But it's important to remember that sales are important, but revenue and profit moreso. If they sell 5% fewer units, but in-house sensor production means 10% more profit, that's a win.

“Might” and “could” being the operative terms in my post. That was sorta my impetus for posting, if not stated: nobody can state “such and such didn’t hurt sales,” we’d need a ceteris paribus parallel universe to conclude such.

"Seem to" being the operative words in ahsanford's post, in that case.

But I took his implication as 'hurting their sales' to the extent that the were displaced from their position as the ILC market leader, and that can be stated unequivocally and with certainty.

 

[3kramd5]

• ...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet it does not seem to have hurt their sales.

- A

I’d venture to say it might have: their sales could have been even stronger than they were.

I'd venture to say you have no way of knowing that, probably no one does (not even Canon, although they are in the best position to guess). But it's important to remember that sales are important, but revenue and profit moreso. If they sell 5% fewer units, but in-house sensor production means 10% more profit, that's a win.

“Might” and “could” being the operative terms in my post. That was sorta my impetus for posting, if not stated: nobody can state “such and such didn’t hurt sales,” we’d need a ceteris paribus parallel universe to conclude such.

"Seem to" being the operative words in ahsanford's post, in that case.

But I took his implication as 'hurting their sales' to the extent that the were displaced from their position as the ILC market leader, and that can be stated unequivocally and with certainty.

Regarding market share, indeed it is true.

If I could peer though into the parallel universe where say canon had abandoned its vertical integration for ILC imaging sensors and used for example in a hypothetical 5D3.5 what Nikon used in D810, I imagine I’d see more individual canon sales, due to the arguable better IQ being paired with canon’s market leading lens, speedlight, and service ecosystem.

How’s that for “can’t know”

Here I am sitting happy with my 5d3 and 1Dx. I even sold my A7Rii (fortunately for me before the iii was announced).

 

[ahsanford]

• ...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet it does not seem to have hurt their sales.

- A

I’d venture to say it might have: their sales could have been even stronger than they were.

That implies Canon had a R&D pipeline decision tree with a radio button for 'Make Better Sensor' with a Yes or a No with no impact on other decisions they could have made with the business.

With that logic, Canon should always put out the best mostest everythingest into everything, and all flowcharts lead to a D850 or A7R3 because more is more.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

"Seem to" being the operative words in ahsanford's post, in that case.

But I took his implication as 'hurting their sales' to the extent that the were displaced from their position as the ILC market leader, and that can be stated unequivocally and with certainty.

Too kind, Neuro. Yes, this is what I meant -- I have no way of knowing hypotheticals, but for all of EXMOR's testing and reviewing glory, they aren't racking up sales like (seemingly last-gen) Canon sensors do.

Now, that said, Canon may have internal data that says that they can only maintain #1 with 'not #1' performance/specs/tech for so long, and that features/spec-lists really do matter if the delta between companies is large enough, i.e. Canon may be s---ing their pants about what the competition is up to and what it means for their future.

But the only way we'd know that if the market leader of some 14 years makes a major delta to follow suit, line up their portfolio to good/better/best, match their horsepower, undercut their margins to crank up the sales appeal / value proposition, etc.

When that happens, we'll know they're getting hurt by the A7 phenomenon or a (yet again after the D810) a wonderful Nikon D850 rig that gobbles up the pros.

- A

 

[docsmith]

I saw an add for Annie Leibowitz's online course. In it she said something to the extent of What camera are you using? laughter....if that is what you are thinking about, you are not taking pictures.

That said, I love my gear, but also think that we aren't where we were when I started with digital photography. Back then, there were real differences in gear. Now, the differences are so subtle. For example, I just upgraded to the 5DIV (love gear). I am enjoying it over the 5DIII. Haven't yet used the extra DR. But the touch screen, Wi-Fi are great, and then, here is something amazing, it seems to do better with colors and exposure right out of the camera so I am spending less time in post.

Anyway, this is just my opinion, but I think the other thing that is lost in these debates is what type of company Canon is. And this is me speculating, but I think they have chosen to be the company that provides proven, steady, dependable, and user friendly gear. They are trying to keep up with technology, but have no issues lagging a bit behind as long as what they put out is going to easily work for a wide array of users. That is a sound market leader strategy. Let others do the cost intensive endeavors of pushing the envelope into new areas and develop markets. Canon's efforts have typically been in making what they do better (video, DPAF, high MP sensors, etc), and then expanding into a market (mirrorless) after it has been established by others.

 

[privatebydesign]

I saw an add for Annie Leibowitz's online course. In it she said something to the extent of What camera are you using? laughter....if that is what you are thinking about, you are not taking pictures.

That said, I love my gear, but also think that we aren't where we were when I started with digital photography. Back then, there were real differences in gear. Now, the differences are so subtle. For example, I just upgraded to the 5DIV (love gear). I am enjoying it over the 5DIII. Haven't yet used the extra DR. But the touch screen, Wi-Fi are great, and then, here is something amazing, it seems to do better with colors and exposure right out of the camera so I am spending less time in post.

Anyway, this is just my opinion, but I think the other thing that is lost in these debates is what type of company Canon is. And this is me speculating, but I think they have chosen to be the company that provides proven, steady, dependable, and user friendly gear. They are trying to keep up with technology, but have no issues lagging a bit behind as long as what they put out is going to easily work for a wide array of users. That is a sound market leader strategy. Let others do the cost intensive endeavors of pushing the envelope into new areas and develop markets. Canon's efforts have typically been in making what they do better (video, DPAF, high MP sensors, etc), and then expanding into a market (mirrorless) after it has been established by others.

For many years she used a 1DS MkIII and the compulsory Hasselblad, she isn't gear agnostic, but she can and does rely on techs to 'deal with all that for her'. For a far more broad skilled photographer look no further than the Canon explorer of light Gregory Heisler, he has mastered gear and light to an order of magnitude higher than Leibowitz. For the perfect example of this read his background discussions about the portrait of Rudy Giuliani and why he used an 8x10 rather than the 135 format with a TS-E 24 with the same fov.

 

[3kramd5]

• ...has not been industry leading in pure sensor IQ for some time now and yet it does not seem to have hurt their sales.

- A

I’d venture to say it might have: their sales could have been even stronger than they were.

That implies Canon had a R&D pipeline decision tree with a radio button for 'Make Better Sensor' with a Yes or a No with no impact on other decisions they could have made with the business.

With that logic, Canon should always put out the best mostest everythingest into everything, and all flowcharts lead to a D850 or A7R3 because more is more.

- A

What? No it doesn’t imply that, or anything at all.

Clearly their business model is working for them. I didn’t suggest having better image quality would have made them more *profitable*; indeed it could have increased the NRE and maybe recurring process costs they need to recoup in a price-sensitive market. All I’m saying is that they certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Nikon or Sony “DR is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured.

As clarified, you meant it didn’t hurt their position as market leader. Agreed.

 

[Loswr]

All I’m saying is that they certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Nikon or Sony “DR is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured.

No doubt. But then, Sony and Nikon certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Canon “video AF is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured. I wonder which crowd is larger?

 

[3kramd5]

All I’m saying is that they certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Nikon or Sony “DR is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured.

No doubt. But then, Sony and Nikon certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Canon “video AF is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured. I wonder which crowd is larger?

The latter. I don’t suspect the market at large is represented by techno-enthusiast forums.

 

[Mikehit]

All I’m saying is that they certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Nikon or Sony “DR is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured.

No doubt. But then, Sony and Nikon certainly may have lost unit *sales* to the Canon “video AF is uniquely important” crowd they otherwise could have captured. I wonder which crowd is larger?

This is an interesting video from CW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EZCj9jJlLI&feature=youtu.be

vloggers switching to Canon because 4k is not worth the time, nor the bandwidth, it takes to process and DP-AF just works.

 

[RGF]

If only there were a leak to give me a reason not to buy the a7Riii

choice is more than specs. I tried the A7Rii and found it was very difficult to use and be productive. The main reason, I suspect, was that I did not invest the amount of time necessary to master the camera.

Even w/o seeing the specs of the 5DsR II, I can tell you that the A7RIII will surpass it in some ways and can will win in others.

Have you used the A7RII? If you are happy with it, then you will be happy with the A7RIII. Otherwise suggest you rent one before buying. Allocate a lot of time to learning the camera.

 

[bwud]

If only there were a leak to give me a reason not to buy the a7Riii

choice is more than specs. I tried the A7Rii and found it was very difficult to use and be productive. The main reason, I suspect, was that I did not invest the amount of time necessary to master the camera.

It's more than a time investment. A7Rii is obtuse. I used one almost exclusively for two years (still used my canon 5D bodies when shooting action), and it feels like it intentionally gets in the way of shooting. Even once configured to absolutely minimize menu calls, it's slow to use.

A7Riii is a night and day improvement. It just works the way a camera should, doesn't feel like a sluggish proof of concept, and can be configured even more precisely to taste.