Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

[Cthulhu]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

PBD -- excellent post, thanks. Everything you said was spot on and I continue to learn from your experience. Appreciated!

Now please consider someone who isn't you and lacks your sense of studio portraiture methodology, your commitment to detail, etc.

Like a wedding photographer with a 5DS who has to work a hurry. Using speedlites only. Who may will not crack out a tripod all day. Who may want some ambient light in the shot. Surely they would be in a bit of a pickle juggling higher shutter speeds for that high MP rig vs. their sync speed, right?

I am a rank amateur in this arena, I am not trying to pick an argument so much as understand. Please set me straight!

- A

Please remember that 1/fl is just a recommendation, not a law. I ignore all of this stuff with the 5dsr, and all of my cameras, and do just fine by focusing on keeping a steady hand.

Also remember that if 50mp is too much for your hand-holding concerns, film shooting will never be an option to you as it far exceeds those specs.

Just rent one or borrow one and try it out, you'll likely find it's not a big of a deal as the internet makes it to be.

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

Also remember that if 50mp is too much for your hand-holding concerns, film shooting will never be an option to you as it far exceeds those specs.

Oh no it doesn't. Film, by area, can't match any metric from a modern digital sensor.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27421.msg542751#msg542751

 

[Sporgon]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

Also remember that if 50mp is too much for your hand-holding concerns, film shooting will never be an option to you as it far exceeds those specs.

Oh no it doesn't. Film, by area, can't match any metric from a modern digital sensor.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27421.msg542751#msg542751

I think he must be referring to hand-holding a 10-8 Private

 

[Roo]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

If they allowed pre-orders now, I would do it in the blink of an eye. The original 5dsr is such a great camera, and the improvements I see in the 1dx2 would make it even better, closer to perfection.

I'm right there with you Jopa. I sold my two D810's after a couple week demo from Canon on the 5DS & SR, and bought two SR's. Shortly after that I upgraded my 1DX's to the series II model , thinking I'd shoot the SR's for architecture and the XII's for my faster aviation work. Turns out, because I love the file size and the cameras are so capable, I shoot 90% of my stuff with the 5DSR's. Having 144MB files to tweak will get one spoiled in a hurry.

Very impressive shot! Wondering where you have to be to take this one?

Dear JOPA,

I apologize for the delay in my response to your question. I do a great deal of "air to air" photography assignments. My photo platforms vary, depending upon the subject aircraft, speed of the subject, budget and several other considerations. The image you asked about was taken from a Beechcraft A36 with the double side passenger doors removed. The A36 is a wonderfully capable photo platform and can fly at about 160 knots in the open configuration. Some of my subject aircraft are falling out of the sky at that speed so we go with aircraft like the WWII North American B25 Bomber which can fly at slightly faster speeds for limited duration, or military fighter jets where speed and performance is virtually unlimited.

That is a spectacular shot of Skip Stewart and Prometheus! He always puts on a great show

 

[Cthulhu]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

Also remember that if 50mp is too much for your hand-holding concerns, film shooting will never be an option to you as it far exceeds those specs.

Oh no it doesn't. Film, by area, can't match any metric from a modern digital sensor.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27421.msg542751#msg542751

Except for color and detail...I've read your "proof", which is comically your own posts in another thread, and I'm sorry you spent time comparing film scans (I doubt you own a serious scanner) to digital, and I'm sorry your film prints are not up to par - specially since you're a Canon shooter.
I don't shoot film, because I choose convenience, but it has definite advantages. Resolution, color and detailsare some of them, contrast and DR are not.

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

Also remember that if 50mp is too much for your hand-holding concerns, film shooting will never be an option to you as it far exceeds those specs.

Oh no it doesn't. Film, by area, can't match any metric from a modern digital sensor.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27421.msg542751#msg542751

Except for color and detail...I've read your "proof", which is comically your own posts in another thread, and I'm sorry you spent time comparing film scans (I doubt you own a serious scanner) to digital, and I'm sorry your film prints are not up to par - specially since you're a Canon shooter.
I don't shoot film, because I choose convenience, but it has definite advantages. Resolution, color and detailsare some of them, contrast and DR are not.

The reason I linked to my own lengthy post was because it is authoritative and includes many manufacturer links and detailed examples, pointedly, unlike your opinion comments. Also the same rediculous comments come along on a regular basis and it saves me time and effort retyping it all.

So can you provide one iota of 'evidence' film garners more detail? And I don't know what you mean by "color", but some link or example backing up that assertion would be appreciated.

Oh and I didn't rely on film scans, I have many 24 x 36 wet prints, Cibachromes from 50ASA film, that prove beyond doubt the output from my own personal 21mp camera and 24" printer vastly outresolve them.

 

[Cthulhu]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

Also remember that if 50mp is too much for your hand-holding concerns, film shooting will never be an option to you as it far exceeds those specs.

Oh no it doesn't. Film, by area, can't match any metric from a modern digital sensor.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27421.msg542751#msg542751

Except for color and detail...I've read your "proof", which is comically your own posts in another thread, and I'm sorry you spent time comparing film scans (I doubt you own a serious scanner) to digital, and I'm sorry your film prints are not up to par - specially since you're a Canon shooter.
I don't shoot film, because I choose convenience, but it has definite advantages. Resolution, color and detailsare some of them, contrast and DR are not.

The reason I linked to my own lengthy post was because it is authoritative and includes many manufacturer links and detailed examples, pointedly, unlike your opinion comments. Also the same rediculous comments come along on a regular basis and it saves me time and effort retyping it all.

So can you provide one iota of 'evidence' film garners more detail? And I don't know what you mean by "color", but some link or example backing up that assertion would be appreciated.

Oh and I didn't rely on film scans, I have many 24 x 36 wet prints, Cibachromes from 50ASA film, that prove beyond doubt the output from my own personal 21mp camera and 24" printer vastly outresolve them.

Again I'm sorry you think opinions that don't match yours are ridiculous, or that you don't understand how differently digital vs film color gathering occurs. I shouldn't even reply, because all in all you just seem rude and more interested in beating your chest saying you're "right, as opposed to having a conversation, but since you like links here is one:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

It compares higher resolution cameras than the one you use, but if you scroll down enough you'll find a brief color comparison of film vs a 21mp Canon Dslr.

 

[Sporgon]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

Also remember that if 50mp is too much for your hand-holding concerns, film shooting will never be an option to you as it far exceeds those specs.

Oh no it doesn't. Film, by area, can't match any metric from a modern digital sensor.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27421.msg542751#msg542751

Except for color and detail...I've read your "proof", which is comically your own posts in another thread, and I'm sorry you spent time comparing film scans (I doubt you own a serious scanner) to digital, and I'm sorry your film prints are not up to par - specially since you're a Canon shooter.
I don't shoot film, because I choose convenience, but it has definite advantages. Resolution, color and detailsare some of them, contrast and DR are not.

The reason I linked to my own lengthy post was because it is authoritative and includes many manufacturer links and detailed examples, pointedly, unlike your opinion comments. Also the same rediculous comments come along on a regular basis and it saves me time and effort retyping it all.

So can you provide one iota of 'evidence' film garners more detail? And I don't know what you mean by "color", but some link or example backing up that assertion would be appreciated.

Oh and I didn't rely on film scans, I have many 24 x 36 wet prints, Cibachromes from 50ASA film, that prove beyond doubt the output from my own personal 21mp camera and 24" printer vastly outresolve them.

Again I'm sorry you think opinions that don't match yours are ridiculous, or that you don't understand how differently digital vs film color gathering occurs. I shouldn't even reply, because all in all you just seem rude and more interested in beating your chest saying you're "right, as opposed to having a conversation, but since you like links here is one:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

It compares higher resolution cameras than the one you use, but if you scroll down enough you'll find a brief color comparison of film vs a 21mp Canon Dslr.

;D I thought Tim's example might show up ! The problem with that comparison is that the film used was 5x4, (125 x 100) and the digital was 36x24, so the original magnification recorded on the film was much, much greater !

I am attaching a scan of 6x7 film, drum scanned by Tim himself in fact, of On Landscape fame, at 5000 dpi. The file is 168 MP. For this comparison I have reduced the original to 5616 across, so the same as a 5DII, and shown a 100% crop of this. The 5DII would blow this out of the water technically. In fact to be quite honest I think the original 13 MP 5D would be pretty close !

The bayer array effect just doesn't have as much impact on colour definition as you might think now we are over the 6 MP mark. I thought that I might see an improvement with the 5Ds, but from what I have seen to date - no.

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

;D I thought Tim's example might show up ! The problem with that comparison is that the film used was 5x4, (125 x 100) and the digital was 36x24, so the original magnification recorded on the film was much, much greater !

And it is yet another perfect illustration of disingenuous posting by people who really do know better.

Anybody that actually prints from film and digital stopped arguing about this years ago, on a technical level modern digital sensors best film performance in every metric possible (apart from possibly very long exposures). That doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to use film, there are, however citing non existent technical superiority is not one of them.

 

[Cthulhu]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

Also remember that if 50mp is too much for your hand-holding concerns, film shooting will never be an option to you as it far exceeds those specs.

Oh no it doesn't. Film, by area, can't match any metric from a modern digital sensor.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27421.msg542751#msg542751

Except for color and detail...I've read your "proof", which is comically your own posts in another thread, and I'm sorry you spent time comparing film scans (I doubt you own a serious scanner) to digital, and I'm sorry your film prints are not up to par - specially since you're a Canon shooter.
I don't shoot film, because I choose convenience, but it has definite advantages. Resolution, color and detailsare some of them, contrast and DR are not.

The reason I linked to my own lengthy post was because it is authoritative and includes many manufacturer links and detailed examples, pointedly, unlike your opinion comments. Also the same rediculous comments come along on a regular basis and it saves me time and effort retyping it all.

So can you provide one iota of 'evidence' film garners more detail? And I don't know what you mean by "color", but some link or example backing up that assertion would be appreciated.

Oh and I didn't rely on film scans, I have many 24 x 36 wet prints, Cibachromes from 50ASA film, that prove beyond doubt the output from my own personal 21mp camera and 24" printer vastly outresolve them.

Again I'm sorry you think opinions that don't match yours are ridiculous, or that you don't understand how differently digital vs film color gathering occurs. I shouldn't even reply, because all in all you just seem rude and more interested in beating your chest saying you're "right, as opposed to having a conversation, but since you like links here is one:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

It compares higher resolution cameras than the one you use, but if you scroll down enough you'll find a brief color comparison of film vs a 21mp Canon Dslr.

;D I thought Tim's example might show up ! The problem with that comparison is that the film used was 5x4, (125 x 100) and the digital was 36x24, so the original magnification recorded on the film was much, much greater !

I am attaching a scan of 6x7 film, drum scanned by Tim himself in fact, of On Landscape fame, at 5000 dpi. The file is 168 MP. For this comparison I have reduced the original to 5616 across, so the same as a 5DII, and shown a 100% crop of this. The 5DII would blow this out of the water technically. In fact to be quite honest I think the original 13 MP 5D would be pretty close !

The bayer array effect just doesn't have as much impact on colour definition as you might think now we are over the 6 MP mark. I thought that I might see an improvement with the 5Ds, but from what I have seen to date - no.

I was ready to take you seriously until you came with a 1500w 3mb file of a supposedly 168MP photo, with no comparison digital shot, but even though I'm advocate digital shooting over film I'd never be as foolish as to say the original 5d get close to medium format...
As a matter of fact the 5Dsr was the first Dslr to seriously compete with medium format, in a much much easier to shoot body - which brings me back to my original point that Privatebydesign has been contending for no good reason - if you can't do it with a 5Dsr then forget trying to do it with film.

 

[Sporgon]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

I was ready to take you seriously until you came with a 1500w 3mb file of a supposedly 168MP photo, with no comparison digital shot, but even though I'm advocate digital shooting over film I'd never be as foolish as to say the original 5d get close to medium format...
As a matter of fact the 5Dsr was the first Dslr to seriously compete with medium format, in a much much easier to shoot body - which brings me back to my original point that Privatebydesign has been contending for no good reason - if you can't do it with a 5Dsr then forget trying to do it with film.

Seriously ? The 1500px width was to give the 100% crop context. If you find out how to attach a 14,168 x 11,882 - 963 meg file then let me know! For your amusement here is a 100% crop of the full size. The output size of this at 240 dpi full image is 60 " across. I agree that at that size of output it would be better than the 5D, put at an enlargement of say A3 at 240 dpi, so a decent sized print for most, I believe the 5D would be just as good. The second 100% crop is of the file reduced to 4638 px width to give you an idea.

One thing the 100% crop shows is that film was never intended to be viewed "at 100%"

 

[romanr74]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

I was ready to take you seriously until you came with a 1500w 3mb file of a supposedly 168MP photo, with no comparison digital shot, but even though I'm advocate digital shooting over film I'd never be as foolish as to say the original 5d get close to medium format...
As a matter of fact the 5Dsr was the first Dslr to seriously compete with medium format, in a much much easier to shoot body - which brings me back to my original point that Privatebydesign has been contending for no good reason - if you can't do it with a 5Dsr then forget trying to do it with film.

Seriously ? The 1500px width was to give the 100% crop context. If you find out how to attach a 14,168 x 11,882 - 963 meg file then let me know! For your amusement here is a 100% crop of the full size. The output size of this at 240 dpi full image is 60 " across. I agree that at that size of output it would be better than the 5D, put at an enlargement of say A3 at 240 dpi, so a decent sized print for most, I believe the 5D would be just as good. The second 100% crop is of the file reduced to 4638 px width to give you an idea.

One thing the 100% crop shows is that film was never intended to be viewed "at 100%"

Isn't all of that quite vague...?
Do you believe digital is intended to be viewed "at 100%"?

 

[Sporgon]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

I was ready to take you seriously until you came with a 1500w 3mb file of a supposedly 168MP photo, with no comparison digital shot, but even though I'm advocate digital shooting over film I'd never be as foolish as to say the original 5d get close to medium format...
As a matter of fact the 5Dsr was the first Dslr to seriously compete with medium format, in a much much easier to shoot body - which brings me back to my original point that Privatebydesign has been contending for no good reason - if you can't do it with a 5Dsr then forget trying to do it with film.

Seriously ? The 1500px width was to give the 100% crop context. If you find out how to attach a 14,168 x 11,882 - 963 meg file then let me know! For your amusement here is a 100% crop of the full size. The output size of this at 240 dpi full image is 60 " across. I agree that at that size of output it would be better than the 5D, put at an enlargement of say A3 at 240 dpi, so a decent sized print for most, I believe the 5D would be just as good. The second 100% crop is of the file reduced to 4638 px width to give you an idea.

One thing the 100% crop shows is that film was never intended to be viewed "at 100%"

Isn't all of that quite vague...?
Do you believe digital is intended to be viewed "at 100%"?

Well film is vague when compared with digital isn't it, that's the point really. Film and digital have a totally different structure. You could argue that viewing film at "100%" is just directly viewing the negative or transparency. As you enlarge from there is is blurring continually, theoretically. To say that film captures "more detail" is completely wrong, at least area for area. It takes a much larger format size of film to overcome digital. It is true to say film has "more colour", but only when viewing a good transparency on a light box. As soon as you go to any other viewing medium that slight, theoretical advantage is lost, and how many of us want to view our work as a small transparency on a light box ?

This makes the comparisons of film format sizes to digital sensor size rather dubious too. Because of the "vagueness" of film grain compared with pixels significant increases in area were required to give significant improvements in definition. This isn't the same case with digital. You ask if digital is "intended to be viewed at 100% ?", well the structure of the medium means that it can in a way that film couldn't. Certainly judging by the gear that many aspire to here on CR they need to view it at 100% !

A camera like the 5Ds blitzes film medium format in every way, in fact you'd have to go to 5x4 to get even close. To me this makes the 5Ds a really specialist tool, I'd only need to use it as when I had the need for a large format film camera. The other thing of course is the QE of modern digital cameras. A 5Ds may have considerably less area than say 6x7 film, but at about 60% QE it is probably recording more light than the inefficient film, which had the "QE" equivalent of between 10 and 15%.

Same thing goes for crop digital camera too. As the technology becomes more and more efficient their performance is going to make FF look very expensive. Maybe Nikon were ahead of their time in 2003 when they said there was no need to produce a 35mm sized digital

I wish film did offer something better to those that are prepared to go through the relatively difficult process of producing a picture because then I could use it and have an edge in this sea of technically brilliant digital images. I have tried, and I can believe that what I have produced has more appeal. The trouble is though I can achieve the exact same thing digitally, which makes me less inclined to pursue it.

 

[HarryFilm]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

I think I might have some ability to
respond to some of the discussions
regarding just how good digital is now
compared to film even when shooting
120 medium format plates (56mm x 41.5mm)
at 6x4.5 1.35:1 aspect ratio to
6x24 at ultrawide 4:1 aspect ratios.

The largest drum scanner I've been to find
was a 9600 dpi line scanner used for scanning
Imax film to 8000+ dots per inch at various aspect ratios.
So comparing something like 6x4.5 to digital would require
AT LEAST an 8K+ drum scanner (a few are around!)

Quality-wise, the colour saturation was UNMATCHED compared
to almost all digital sensors for film vs. 35mm/full frame.
The problem is FILM GRAIN which people mistake for NOISE
which needs some heavy post processing to remove.
Since film grains are variable in size and orientation
versus digital pixels, this "grain" is too similar to noise
for many people who have grown up with all-digital cameras.
So quality wise, is it a letdown for the digerati vs for people
like me who happen to LIKE the "grain" and Saturation of film vs digital.

I still shoot AND process lots of Black and White
(and a tiny amount of colour film!) and I LIKE the
really high contrast and grainy look of film which is
just too hard to duplicate well in all-digital formats.

In terms of QUALITY, the BEST CMOS SENSOR I HAVE EVER SEEN
was a 50 microns per pixel 4k sensor from Teledyne-DALSA
which was put on the size of a whole north american
8.5 inch by 11 inch sheet of paper which had the
BEST light gathering and noise reduction I have
EVER seen in ANY digital format, film format
and high end astro-photography camera.

YES! It was quite nearly $750,000 US for the sensor
but its sample images were BEYOND anything I have
ever seen colour saturation-wise or noise levels-wise.
It was so sensitive Deep Night turned into DAYTIME!
And it was MUCH MUCH BETTER QUALITY than the Canon
4 million ISO camera that was intro'ed last year!

For BEST all-round digital imaging for less-bright scenes
that have less noise but still well-saturated colours,
the Sony A7s2 is still hard to beat!

For best daytime colours, the Phase-One's
are darn near PERFECT! But of course the
price for such a camera is outrageous!

For us mere mortals, I would suggest the
best all-rounder cameras at a "Reasonable"
price are now the Canon 5D Mk4 and the
Fuji 50 megapixel MF camera. Noise at
1600 to 3200 ISO is tiny and the general image
quality just makes too much sense over ANY older
or even NEWER Medium Format film cameras!

 

[Sharlin]

Re: Update to EOS 5DS & 5DS R Coming in 2017? [CR1]

...

With the forced newlines this reads like free-verse poetry