The 5DsR mk2

[dak723]

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.

If DR is of utmost importance, then Sony and Nikon will make gains. The idea that Canon could have captured this crowd is false. At this time, and perhaps for some time in the future, Sony seems to have the best sensor and architecture to deliver the highest IQ. They have this methodology patented. Canon - or any other company - will need to come up with a patented methodology to create a sensor and accompanying architecture that will be better. They don't have such a technology - so they cannot capture the "need the best DR" crowd.

One possible reason that Canon continues to succeed despite having slightly worse DR at low ISO is that most people aren't pixel peepers and most people don't underexpose 3 or 4 stops and most people aren't lifting shadows that much. For them, the difference in DR is either negligible or not noticeable at all. Having tried both the A& and A7 II, I fall into this group.

 

[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.

If DR is of utmost importance, then Sony and Nikon will make gains. The idea that Canon could have captured this crowd is false.

You might have missed the hypothetical portion of this exchange.

Canon - or any other company - will need to come up with a patented methodology to create a sensor and accompanying architecture that will be better. They don't have such a technology - so they cannot capture the "need the best DR" crowd.

The technology need not be patented, it merely need be available to them.

I have significant doubts a company with canon’s experience and R&D capital is incapable of building sensors every bit as “good” as Sony’s. And even if they are, I know they are capable of purchasing sensors from Sony Semicon. That they do not merely indicates that 1) they don’t see investment in having “the best” sensor as materially important to their product (I agree with them) or profits, and 2) they prefer vertical integration in the ILC camera products (they buy sensors for some of their compacts).

However, if they offered everything they do, from build, ergo, lenses, speedlights, unique capabilities like DPAF, support infrastructure, etc., and did it with a “better” sensor by whatever means (their own fab or a purchased item), there is little doubt in my mind their sales wouldn’t have been stronger.

Regardless, it’s all irrelevant because what ahsanford meant is not what I responded to

 

[littleB]

However, if they offered everything they do, from build, ergo, lenses, speedlights, unique capabilities like DPAF, support infrastructure, etc., and did it with a “better” sensor by whatever means (their own fab or a purchased item), there is little doubt in my mind their sales wouldn’t have been stronger.

Regardless, it’s all irrelevant because what ahsanford meant is not what I responded to

What your mind is lacking is the understanding why the technology is patented. The owner of patented technology can set any price to their technology and can deliberately choose to sell or not to sell any of such technology to any asking party. Why on Earth would Sony allow sales of their matrices to a direct competitor at all, and even if allowed, what would be their asking price. There is no reason to ask reasonable prices. I have no doubts that the cost of buying the external technology and the cost of integration will lead to final product cost that you would not like.

 

[Sporgon]

However, if they offered everything they do, from build, ergo, lenses, speedlights, unique capabilities like DPAF, support infrastructure, etc., and did it with a “better” sensor by whatever means (their own fab or a purchased item), there is little doubt in my mind their sales wouldn’t have been stronger.

Regardless, it’s all irrelevant because what ahsanford meant is not what I responded to

What your mind is lacking is the understanding why the technology is patented. The owner of patented technology can set any price to their technology and can deliberately choose to sell or not to sell any of such technology to any asking party. Why on Earth would Sony allow sales of their matrices to a direct competitor at all, and even if allowed, what would be their asking price. There is no reason to ask reasonable prices. I have no doubts that the cost of buying the external technology and the cost of integration will lead to final product cost that you would not like.

?

Sony do sell their tech to direct competitors - FF in Nikon and Pentax, smaller sensors to Canon as well.

In the course of my photography and digital imaging business I've never come across anyone outside of Internet forums who have complained about Canon sensors and this ridiculous internet centric "lower image quality at low ISO when underexposing by three stops and lifting shadows". Not one single person. So when you look at the amount of people who frequent forums such as CR compared with the amount of people globally who have cameras, I would agree with 3krmad5 that the fitting of a Sony Exmor sensor wouldn't have made one jot of difference to overall sales.

 

[littleB]

?

Sony do sell their tech to direct competitors - FF in Nikon and Pentax, smaller sensors to Canon as well.

I guess the level of competition between Sony and Canon is different than between Sony and Pentax. It is Sony will that will be ultimate deciding the sensor deal if Canon ever asked to buy their sensors. Thats one of protections that patents provide. Canon obviously does not like to be in asking position when DSLRs are concerned.

Sony and Nikon had a joint ventrure to develop and manufacture sensors, they may have some agreements regarding access to sensors.

For smaller sensors, the market is completely different, much more players and much more competition both in demand and supply. Rare cases of Sony sensors in little Canon cameras may be a result of this competition. Even in those cases Sony have means to lower competition wih Canon by delaying or limiting competitor access to their sensors. DSLR competition is not so multilateral.

 

[BillB]

?

Sony do sell their tech to direct competitors - FF in Nikon and Pentax, smaller sensors to Canon as well.

I guess the level of competition between Sony and Canon is different than between Sony and Pentax. It is Sony will that will be ultimate deciding the sensor deal if Canon ever asked to buy their sensors. Thats one of protections that patents provide. Canon obviously does not like to be in asking position when DSLRs are concerned.

Sony and Nikon had a joint ventrure to develop and manufacture sensors, they may have some agreements regarding access to sensors.

For smaller sensors, the market is completely different, much more players and much more competition both in demand and supply. Rare cases of Sony sensors in little Canon cameras may be a result of this competition. Even in those cases Sony have means to lower competition wih Canon by delaying or limiting competitor access to their sensors. DSLR competition is not so multilateral.

Canon's dual pixel technology would seem to have some relevance here. As long is Canon is committed to dual pixel technology, it isn't going to be using Sony sensors, even if Sony gives them away.

 

[3kramd5]

What your mind is lacking is the understanding why the technology is patented. The owner of patented technology can set any price to their technology and can deliberately choose to sell or not to sell any of such technology to any asking party.

I know why technology is patented, I own several. “What your mind is lacking is the understanding why” (to put it in your friendly terminology) companies sometimes strategically don’t patent processes (which I’ll remind is what you brought up: “...need to come up with a patented methodology to create...”). If a process gives you an advantage and it’s unlikely your competitors will figure out how you make what you make, patenting tips your hand and your competitors merely need recreate, find an improvement (which is easy), and then they can go toe to toe with you by standing on your shoulders.

That canon may not have a patent for X should never be taken as an indication canon doesn’t have the capability to produce much less purchase X.

Why on Earth would Sony allow sales of their matrices to a direct competitor at all

Why does Samsung sell flash memory, DRAM, OLED displays to Apple? More on point, why does Sony sell small camera sensors to vendors like Apple and Samsung whose products compete with its own Xperia line?

Sony Semiconductor exists to sell products. There is almost no doubt that if canon came with their checkbook asking for full frame sensors, Sony would sell them.

I have no doubts that the cost of buying the external technology and the cost of integration will lead to final product cost that you would not like.

It may cost less, it may cost more. Given that Sony Semi has much larger throughput than Canon, the cost could easily come out a wash. But that’s neither here nor there.

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

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.

.....
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.

I have the A7RII, and have sent it in for repair twice now. Once for the SD slot not locking the card in, and then for a sticky shutter, and glitchy electronics. Sometimes the camera just goes blank, as if there is no power. Sometimes the Aperture and Shutter speed go wonkers. It happens at the worst of times. Turn it off and On and its all OK. Then the lens mount has some play in it. I use it with the MetaBones as I only have a couple natives, and they are not that popular in my use. The 70-200 L IS is a lot of lens for the size of the camera, and this lens play now effects the communication of the lens, and even does so with the 24-70 L2.8 So things are not made with tight tolerance. Changing Modes would often trip the electronics and cause it to glitch. Power down and up, and its OK again with a slight adjustment of the lens contacts.

I have ZERO plans of giving up my Canon glass, so I guess I will not know how much of these issues are Sny to adapter related vs Sony body. But I think the way things happen I can say its the body itself for the most part.

I also was at a noon shoot at the beach, and the Sony VF was a NIGHTMARE. DOes the A7R# have a vastly, or even significantly improved VF? It was BEAUTIFUL using a optical VF (NOT the case in studio, as the opposite is true, I love using the Sony).
SO...DOES the A7R3 address these issues? Can you list them off with a YES or NO?
Since you have had both and the Canon, you might know my perspective.

 

[Talys]

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.

.....
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.

I have the A7RII, and have sent it in for repair twice now. Once for the SD slot not locking the card in, and then for a sticky shutter, and glitchy electronics. Sometimes the camera just goes blank, as if there is no power. Sometimes the Aperture and Shutter speed go wonkers. It happens at the worst of times. Turn it off and On and its all OK. Then the lens mount has some play in it. I use it with the MetaBones as I only have a couple natives, and they are not that popular in my use. The 70-200 L IS is a lot of lens for the size of the camera, and this lens play now effects the communication of the lens, and even does so with the 24-70 L2.8 So things are not made with tight tolerance. Changing Modes would often trip the electronics and cause it to glitch. Power down and up, and its OK again with a slight adjustment of the lens contacts.

I have ZERO plans of giving up my Canon glass, so I guess I will not know how much of these issues are Sny to adapter related vs Sony body. But I think the way things happen I can say its the body itself for the most part.

I also was at a noon shoot at the beach, and the Sony VF was a NIGHTMARE. DOes the A7R# have a vastly, or even significantly improved VF? It was BEAUTIFUL using a optical VF (NOT the case in studio, as the opposite is true, I love using the Sony).
SO...DOES the A7R3 address these issues? Can you list them off with a YES or NO?
Since you have had both and the Canon, you might know my perspective.

I think the A7R3 and A9 have a vastly improved viewfinder over the A7R2. But for myself, it's an improvement from unusable to unpleasant to use.

- It's turned off when my eye isn't on it, which loses precious moments as I bring the camera to my eye.
- It still eats batteries like crazy
- The image is pleasing, but it still definitely looks like an electronic image. I'd like the EVF to be indistinguishable from the image from an OVF
- It might not have a lot of lag, but it has more lag than zero, which is not great for wildlife
- The resolution still is not nearly good enough for me to be happy with it. The pixel density will need to get quite a lot higher.

Things I do like:
- MF Focus magnification
... ok, well, that's actually all I really like about it, but it's hard to overstate how much I really, really like that feature.

For me, it still feels that the main purpose of an EVF is to make sure that exposure isn't bungled. But, especially given the amazing ability to adjust RAW files in post now, the number of bungled exposures that I get is practically zero.

A viewfinder's job is to help me with exposure, focus, and composition. I think that EVF as it exists today on the A7/A9 series, for me, helps with exposure but hurts with composition. The A7R3 helps greatly with manual focus but pays an equal price in in autofocus speed.

So, for me, it's neither a better or worse device; it's just a different set of compromises, and those compromises happen to fall on things that I'd rather not sacrifice.

 

[deleteme]

In the course of my photography and digital imaging business I've never come across anyone outside of Internet forums who have complained about Canon sensors and this ridiculous internet centric "lower image quality at low ISO when underexposing by three stops and lifting shadows". Not one single person. So when you look at the amount of people who frequent forums such as CR compared with the amount of people globally who have cameras, I would agree with 3krmad5 that the fitting of a Sony Exmor sensor wouldn't have made one jot of difference to overall sales.

Yup.

 

[tomscott]

I think what is difficult to stomach for many long term canon users is that Canon are sitting on their laurels a fair amount. Back in the early days they were so hungry sometimes releases in cameras were less or just over a year.

They were always at the forefront and that was the selling point. You could rely on the fact you didnt need to look at what the comp were doing because generally Canon had it covered and content users are happy users.

Canon have been very conservative since 2012 really with tech not improving vastly or superseding competition.

I would argue that the DR difference isnt a big deal. It isnt for me anyway but latitude is alwasy welcome. I would condem the 4 stop difference charts because its just not a real world application. I dont think I have ever increased an exposure 4 stops.

People get so tied up in trivial arguments when the competition is only offering a small amount of increase. It was different with the 5DMKIII with it having poor shadow noise and increasing shadow areas left muddy purple detail. Now with newer cameras this has completely disappeared, the 5DMKIV is stellar and although the 6DMKII doesnt have on chip ADC its a far better sensor than the 5DMKIII IMO.

The thing is weve got to such a tertiary point that any gains are small now and the products are excellent.

TBH its not the technology that I think is the problem, you can do anything with modern DSLRs within reason. What I would like to see is some sort of inovation of the camera itself and I dont think a change in form factor is "IT". Smartphones have created a whole new genre, but the cameras are still poor, small sensors, single focal lengths, simulated DOF etc etc

What I would like to see is more option for 3rd party apps to allow more use of the computers controlling the cameras. What you can do with an mobile phone is incredible but what ever tech they bring and how ever 'good' people seem to think they are, even the best cameras phones are dire IMO especially when you compare them to a FF camera.

Having the processing power and tighter integration similar to what samsung did with the NX1. Half of the issue currently is that its far easier to take, edit and share images on a phone. There must be a simple way to combat this where the camera can do more of the work instead of transferring it over and the only reason for the camera is capture then the tool is set aside.

This is where I think they are missing a trick and why people love smartphones. They are also tertiary products and what these apps can do with the camera is incredible. You can do almost anything, even down to simple things like the sunseeker app that shows you where the sun will be, engaging intervalometers, star seeker, Depth of Field calculator, Hyperfocal Table, exposure controls that dont require a timer to get over 30 seconds. Those are just touching the surface and specific to how the camera works and skills in location scouting and planning. There are so much more creative applications as well as technical.

Currently cameras are a burden to average users and they truely think a mobile phone is a better option. I tend to leave my camera at home more than I used to and use my phone. At the end of an afternoon out or a weekend away being able to make a small video of the clips the camera has taken as a quick overview of a weekend in Apples Memories tool is really a lovely addition.

Its not a pro function but does everything need to be pro centric? If I wanted to do the same with my canon I would document the weekend or day have to show images on a paltry little screen that dont do the images justice without transferring them to another device. Get home transfer the images and video to my computer, sort and edit the images I want to use, boot up final cut, spend a couple of hours putting it together then let it export then try to share it. In the mean time the phone can do this in a couple of minutes and you can share it to a TV and watch it before the trip is completely over.

With memories I can quickly select what I want and it puts it together and you can change the time or move images around, get to that few seconds of a video that really matters. If I want to make something more charming and long lasting I can do that too with final cut etc but its all about time, memories are real in the here and now not in a couple of days or weeks time.

These features appeal more to the masses and lets be honest when you work all day every day as a photographer it can be a chore to pic it up at the weekend, its nice to have that sort of capability and you dont have to work that hard to make something really quite nice. Especially if you have kids, ive seen some amazing 1-2 min vids put together in this manner with not much effort.

Thats the nice thing about iPhone apps is that you choose what you want rather than be given what manufactures think you need. There must be some sort of policing so the experience is adequate and the apps actually work.

I generally think its more about making more use of what we already have, improving the experience and redefining what a camera is and what it can do.

The software is as important as the hardware IMO. We've not seen anything in the photographic realms that comes close to this. I dont think there is a difference between what someone would think is a pro or an amateur feature you just download what you need or want to use.

With Augmented Reality being the big talking point simulating your shot in camera with something like sun seekers and knowing about where the sun will be visable in a U or V shaped valley at a specific time and where to be then waiting for that light while your out shooting would be a pretty cool experience.

Im a country bloke and come from the Lake District UK. The lakes are long and can be north to south east to west or somewhere inbetween. Depending on the time of year you might get up at 5am to get a sunrise image and the sun may never break over the top of a mountain and light a valley. This is just one use case and im not really an absolute avid landscaper I enjoy it but its not my all out passion.

I dont think the boundaries of what you could do with a camera have even been touched. Essentially the DSLR is a dinosaur in this respect, same with mirrorless cameras when you could do the above and the tech has been around for years.

The challenge in modern photography is getting images out quickly and easily which is why imo the DSLR and even mirrorless cameras arent succeeding in the mainstream. DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are still niche products compared to a smart phone.

Even the merits of mirroless cameras are so small, a digital display so you can see exposure... smaller body but unwieldy lenses. It blows my mind at what tiny scale these manufacturers think about when improving cameras. Miniscule differences in the grand scheme of things and really how slow these things are implemented.

I dont really think mirrorless is really better its just a different form factor with a couple of mechanical/electronic changes.

Where is the innovation? Why are we stuck where we are? Cameras have been the same in the digital space since the D30 which is 18 years ago. Even that was based on the film variants which first came to market in the late 1940s...

 

[Ozarker]

Where is the innovation? Why are we stuck where we are? Cameras have been the same in the digital space since the D30 which is 18 years ago. Even that was based on the film variants which first came to market in the late 1940s...

Tom, you make some very good points about the apps and all that, but lets not forget another big reason smartphones are so popular: They are free or the cost is built into the plan so that they appear free. The photos are sent to Facebook, Twitter, etc.

My wife and I both have smartphones, Casio G'zone. They are old (7 or 8 years?). They are slow. They were free. We are both over 50 (Maybe that's the problem), so we still remember the luxury of leaving the house in the morning and not being bothered by phone calls all day long or not seeing photos of somebody's lunch or hourly selfies. That is a luxury.

I've sort of got lost here, but for me, adding smartphone like functionality to a camera isn't innovation. For me, that's called clutter. So I guess I'm the other side of the coin. I don't take photos with my phone. I don't run the apps. on a phone. My GPS is mounted on my windshield. I really would not want a camera bogged down with all that sort of thing.

I know I'm probably in the minority. That's fine. I have a hard time understanding the idea that there isn't innovation when we see it every few months in the Canon world. You've put down what you think that means better than anyone else I've read.

Innovation for me means something different: Those little steps that add up to big steps. It takes a while to work up to something revolutionary, but gives me the time to enjoy the nuance of getting there.

Now, bring out a "Smart Camera" that includes a complete interchangeable lens system with phone functionality on a plan for $45 a month and free upgrades on the whole enchilada every two years? I'm on it.

 

[unfocused]

...Smartphones have created a whole new genre...

...Half of the issue currently is that its far easier to take, edit and share images on a phone. There must be a simple way to combat this where the camera can do more of the work instead of transferring it over and the only reason for the camera is capture then the tool is set aside...

This is where I think they are missing a trick and why people love smartphones. They are also tertiary products and what these apps can do with the camera is incredible...

I generally think its more about making more use of what we already have, improving the experience and redefining what a camera is and what it can do...

You are so right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=bfCJDIf-NeA

I've been beaten and battered on this forum for saying this, but I will say it again:

It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.

A student recently showed me some videos she produced on her iPhone: shot, edited, added titles, effects, transitions, etc., all without ever touching a computer (other than her phone) and they were damn good. I thought about the time it would take me to do that on my $6,000 camera, my $1,000 lens, $1,500 computer and $60/month software.

There is zero reason why we should not be able to do all the same editing on our cameras and uploading without having to use clunky, crappy work arounds.

 

[Mikehit]

A student recently showed me some videos she produced on her iPhone: shot, edited, added titles, effects, transitions, etc., all without ever touching a computer (other than her phone) and they were damn good. I thought about the time it would take me to do that on my $6,000 camera, my $1,000 lens, $1,500 computer and $60/month software.

So let's ignore the fact that anyone who buys a full camera kit does so because it does things a smarthpone can, or that if you are happy with snapspeed there are plenty of free editing programs for computers, and let's ignore the monthly rental costs of a phone.

You have a decent point regards the capability of the technology but everything else is pretty specious.

 

[Random Orbits]

You are so right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=bfCJDIf-NeA

I've been beaten and battered on this forum for saying this, but I will say it again:

It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.

A student recently showed me some videos she produced on her iPhone: shot, edited, added titles, effects, transitions, etc., all without ever touching a computer (other than her phone) and they were damn good. I thought about the time it would take me to do that on my $6,000 camera, my $1,000 lens, $1,500 computer and $60/month software.

There is zero reason why we should not be able to do all the same editing on our cameras and uploading without having to use clunky, crappy work arounds.

There is zero reason why ALL smart phones can't take SD cards. I'd rather put the video taken from the camera and move it to the phone via card rather than the slow wi-fi, then use the phone to edit/post etc. And how many people would want to pay for wireless data access for a camera too? Average lifespan of a camera is longer than a phone, so I'd rather have the editing/apps on the phone rather than the camera. Of course, I can't even do that if I wanted to because my 3+ year old 16GB iphone only has about 1 GB of free space (thanks iOS) and I don't have unlimited data.

 

[unfocused]

A student recently showed me some videos she produced on her iPhone: shot, edited, added titles, effects, transitions, etc., all without ever touching a computer (other than her phone) and they were damn good. I thought about the time it would take me to do that on my $6,000 camera, my $1,000 lens, $1,500 computer and $60/month software.

So let's ignore the fact that anyone who buys a full camera kit does so because it does things a smarthpone can, or that if you are happy with snapspeed there are plenty of free editing programs for computers, and let's ignore the monthly rental costs of a phone.

You have a decent point regards the capability of the technology but everything else is pretty specious.

I'm not sure what set you off and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Maybe I'm too thick. Did you mean to write: "...does things a smartphone CAN'T..."?

I wasn't making a cost comparison, I'm simply pointing out that all camera manufactures have massively failed to keep up with technology and photographers suffer as a result. (Not to mention that it hasn't helped their business either, as evidenced by the death of Point and Shoot and the decline in all camera sales)

 

[FramerMCB]

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.
I was never blown away by its detail as I didn't think it ever showed any more detail than a 5D III.
I'd find the image quality in the 5D IV much better than it.

There is something wrong with your 5DSR. The linear resolution of mine at iso640 is 30-40% higher in terms of lp/mm for all my lenses using charts and distinctly sharper for reproducing images than my 5DIV, and 50% more than my previous 5DIII.
I don't think my findings are unique. Lensrentals measured MTFs from the 5DS, 5DSR and 5DIII back in 2015 and showed up to a 50% increase in the centre for a sharp lens on the 5DSR vs 5DIII https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/

The one thing I've read over and over about the 5DsR (& 5Ds) is that with these MP monster's, technique matters greatly to get the most out of them. Meaning, if you are hand-holding for example and are going by the old rule of thumb concerning the shutter-speed to focal length ratio (even factoring IS in) you need to bump that up by at least 1 stop or the resulting images may not be as crisp. Now if you're exclusively a tripod shooter with this camera your results should be great-to-fantastic as far as resolution goes. However, your final image can also be more susceptible to atmospheric haze too, I've read...

 

[AlanF]

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.
I was never blown away by its detail as I didn't think it ever showed any more detail than a 5D III.
I'd find the image quality in the 5D IV much better than it.

There is something wrong with your 5DSR. The linear resolution of mine at iso640 is 30-40% higher in terms of lp/mm for all my lenses using charts and distinctly sharper for reproducing images than my 5DIV, and 50% more than my previous 5DIII.
I don't think my findings are unique. Lensrentals measured MTFs from the 5DS, 5DSR and 5DIII back in 2015 and showed up to a 50% increase in the centre for a sharp lens on the 5DSR vs 5DIII https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests/

The one thing I've read over and over about the 5DsR (& 5Ds) is that with these MP monster's, technique matters greatly to get the most out of them. Meaning, if you are hand-holding for example and are going by the old rule of thumb concerning the shutter-speed to focal length ratio (even factoring IS in) you need to bump that up by at least 1 stop or the resulting images may not be as crisp. Now if you're exclusively a tripod shooter with this camera your results should be great-to-fantastic as far as resolution goes. However, your final image can also be more susceptible to atmospheric haze too, I've read...

I don't use a tripod, but I will rest the camera on anything available if I can. I do use very fast shutter speeds for distant small birds or birds in flight - not just rule of thumb x 2 but 1/2500s or faster. Ari Hazeghi uses these speeds with his low mpixel cameras too. For close-up birds, 1/200s gives very sharp results if the bird is still. I am no lo longer scared of using iso6400 as DxO suppresses the noise well and the results are at least as good as with my 5DIV. And, if necessary, I also underexpose by a couple of stops at iso6400 and fixed speed as I can pull back.

 

[privatebydesign]

It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.

That simply is not true. Any f the cameras that take a WFT have the capability to upload direct. Any with WiFi, NFC or WFT's have the ability to be put into a tablet or phone for exactly the same functionality more connected devices have too.

I do agree with your premise that it is a feature more people want in their cameras and it needs to be much easier to do, but to say you can't do it simply isn't true.

 

[ahsanford]

It is an absolute embarrassment that Uncle Joe with his smartphone can shoot and upload content to the web in a few seconds, while a professional photographer cannot.

That simply is not true. Any f the cameras that take a WFT have the capability to upload direct. Any with WiFi, NFC or WFT's have the ability to be put into a tablet or phone for exactly the same functionality more connected devices have too.

I do agree with your premise that it is a feature more people want in their cameras and it needs to be much easier to do, but to say you can't do it simply isn't true.

The weird bit for me is that the device I wish more seamlessly could share photos to the world -- my 5D3 -- is also the device I am most like capture photos that I want to post-process on my own.

I always shoot RAW + JPG as I am not buffer constrained in what/how I shoot. I archive JPG straight out of camera, but the keepers I want to share show off here, on social media, etc. are overwhelmingly my better shots that I want to clean up in ACR.

And using PS on the ipad or the lighter version of it on the Phone is not at all my cup of tea, I wish I had lightning quick connectivity for... the non-keepers? That's weird, right? This is probably why I've never bought a DSLR with wifi.

- A