Using the 5DSR for wildlife, a field review

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I've been using a 5DsR the past few days (review copy) and have a quick question for the experienced among you. What are you using for AFMA with it? I've tried my usual software (Reikan FoCal), and I'm not impressed with the initial results. I didn't feel that it selected enough points or dialed it down quite enough.

 

[AlanF]

I've been using a 5DsR the past few days (review copy) and have a quick question for the experienced among you. What are you using for AFMA with it? I've tried my usual software (Reikan FoCal), and I'm not impressed with the initial results. I didn't feel that it selected enough points or dialed it down quite enough.

FoCal worked fine for me. You can tell the software to take more points. Or, if you are an anal scientist like me, repeat the test a few times and take the mean value. Or, if you are as anal as Neuro, you can take a set of images yourself and get FoCal to analyse them. I even checked a couple of my lenses using Bob Atkins chart (#2) taking images +/- AFMA around the FoCal one and found the FoCal to be the best.

 

[Eldar]

I've been using a 5DsR the past few days (review copy) and have a quick question for the experienced among you. What are you using for AFMA with it? I've tried my usual software (Reikan FoCal), and I'm not impressed with the initial results. I didn't feel that it selected enough points or dialed it down quite enough.

I have had the same thoughts you have with FoCal, but not just with the 5DSR. I have often done several reruns and, in some cases, ended on different results (not much deviation though). I also use a manual LensAlign rig, to qualify the proposed setting. The results I am getting with the long whites, especially combined with extenders looks a bit like a lotto, so the values I am using for the 600 f4L IS II, both alone and with extenders, are from using the LensAlign rig, not FoCal.

 

[AlanF]

I've been using a 5DsR the past few days (review copy) and have a quick question for the experienced among you. What are you using for AFMA with it? I've tried my usual software (Reikan FoCal), and I'm not impressed with the initial results. I didn't feel that it selected enough points or dialed it down quite enough.

I have had the same thoughts you have with FoCal, but not just with the 5DSR. I have often done several reruns and, in some cases, ended on different results (not much deviation though). I also use a manual LensAlign rig, to qualify the proposed setting. The results I am getting with the long whites, especially combined with extenders looks a bit like a lotto, so the values I am using for the 600 f4L IS II, both alone and with extenders, are from using the LensAlign rig, not FoCal.

It's the very nature of experimental measurement that repeat runs give a spread of results around the mean value, and so you repeat the experiments and take the average. You can measure the focus consistency on FoCal and find it is never 100.0%, and it is the variations in that as well as small differences in conditions of each measurement that give the spread of fits. As I wrote, whenever I check the FoCal results with more laborious manual methods, they always agree.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I've been using a 5DsR the past few days (review copy) and have a quick question for the experienced among you. What are you using for AFMA with it? I've tried my usual software (Reikan FoCal), and I'm not impressed with the initial results. I didn't feel that it selected enough points or dialed it down quite enough.

I have had the same thoughts you have with FoCal, but not just with the 5DSR. I have often done several reruns and, in some cases, ended on different results (not much deviation though). I also use a manual LensAlign rig, to qualify the proposed setting. The results I am getting with the long whites, especially combined with extenders looks a bit like a lotto, so the values I am using for the 600 f4L IS II, both alone and with extenders, are from using the LensAlign rig, not FoCal.

It's the very nature of experimental measurement that repeat runs give a spread of results around the mean value, and so you repeat the experiments and take the average. You can measure the focus consistency on FoCal and find it is never 100.0%, and it is the variations in that as well as small differences in conditions of each measurement that give the spread of fits. As I wrote, whenever I check the FoCal results with more laborious manual methods, they always agree.

thanks for the feedback. I did a couple of runs with the lenses I want to use for testing in my review but haven't yet felt that field results were dialed in.

 

[Hector1970]

Grant, first of all, thanks for the much detailed review. Having only a single rig, I was wondering though how often you find yourself in a low light situation, when you are forced to use a better low light performer rig instead of 5DS(r) ? As most of my wildlife photography takes place in the dusk/dawn, I feel I should rather stick with a lower MP body, which has better high iso quality than vice versa. I do believe one can get wonderful results with the 5Ds as long as there is enough light, though.
Inputs of any 5Ds(r) users would be appreciated.

I think the 5DSR is very good when there is good available light. Once the light drops its a bit more difficult. You are restricted by the default ISO range. I don't like the noise pattern myself. Outside the default range I don't like the noise at all and I guess Canon must also have had concerns. I prefer the 5D III in this regard. I find it's noise pattern acceptable.
Some of this is such small detail that it's in my head and maybe not real. I don't like the 7DII at high ISO and the noise in the 7DII and 5DSR look very similar (more or less the same sensor I believe).

I think the 5DSR is a good camera but the 5D III is a better all round camera if you were buying your first full frame. It was designed to win the race to 50MP.
It's very good in a studio, the detail is incredible (but you often have to smooth out / hide some of its results). It wouldn't be the first camera I'd think of to bring on a Safari to capture animals but they are often they are static so I'm sure it's quite effective.

For Landscape on a tripod at low ISO it's a great performer.
Good Technique is very important with it. You can recover good detail from shadows with it.

File size I still think is a pain in the butt. Yes I knew this in advance but you've got experience it to appreciate it. Yes memory is getting cheaper but most laptops sold are 4GB Ram and 500GB to 1TB storage. The files are slow to process and will fill up a hard disk in no time (at least at the rate I shoot at).
The timelag between photo and appearance on screen is that little bit too long not to be a bit annoying

Overall it is a very good camera but it has some notable downsides. I'm using mine more and more so I guess I am a happy customer overall (but I love my 5D III - I think its a great all round camera).

 

[East Wind Photography]

Grant, first of all, thanks for the much detailed review. Having only a single rig, I was wondering though how often you find yourself in a low light situation, when you are forced to use a better low light performer rig instead of 5DS(r) ? As most of my wildlife photography takes place in the dusk/dawn, I feel I should rather stick with a lower MP body, which has better high iso quality than vice versa. I do believe one can get wonderful results with the 5Ds as long as there is enough light, though.
Inputs of any 5Ds(r) users would be appreciated.

I think the 5DSR is very good when there is good available light. Once the light drops its a bit more difficult. You are restricted by the default ISO range. I don't like the noise pattern myself. Outside the default range I don't like the noise at all and I guess Canon must also have had concerns. I prefer the 5D III in this regard. I find it's noise pattern acceptable.
Some of this is such small detail that it's in my head and maybe not real. I don't like the 7DII at high ISO and the noise in the 7DII and 5DSR look very similar (more or less the same sensor I believe).

I think the 5DSR is a good camera but the 5D III is a better all round camera if you were buying your first full frame. It was designed to win the race to 50MP.
It's very good in a studio, the detail is incredible (but you often have to smooth out / hide some of its results). It wouldn't be the first camera I'd think of to bring on a Safari to capture animals but they are often they are static so I'm sure it's quite effective.

For Landscape on a tripod at low ISO it's a great performer.
Good Technique is very important with it. You can recover good detail from shadows with it.

File size I still think is a pain in the butt. Yes I knew this in advance but you've got experience it to appreciate it. Yes memory is getting cheaper but most laptops sold are 4GB Ram and 500GB to 1TB storage. The files are slow to process and will fill up a hard disk in no time (at least at the rate I shoot at).
The timelag between photo and appearance on screen is that little bit too long not to be a bit annoying

Overall it is a very good camera but it has some notable downsides. I'm using mine more and more so I guess I am a happy customer overall (but I love my 5D III - I think its a great all round camera).

Yes as you noticed the noise is similar to the 7d2 if you crop the image down to the equivalent pixel size. The benefit is that you don't have to. If you can get close or use a longer lens to use more of the frame then the noise gets smaller and can be down sampled to even less. There are ways to improve the image iq where you are mostly stuck with what the 7d2 can achieve natively.

I think it's an awesome studio or landscape camera and as you noted, for some maybe a good wildlife camera.

 

[chauncey]

I've held off a purchase of the 5DSR because I've been ecstatic with the AF of my BIF images
which I then photomerge into one huge image using my elderly 1Ds3...it would usually
capture 9-10, in focus, images as the egrets traversed a pond before the buffer filled.

Will the 5DSR do that.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Ok, the 5DS R is not good enough for you. But, it is now the mainstay of Art Morris, the doyen of bird photography, often paired with the 100-400 II, and used with glee by many of us. If it is not good enough for you, then spend a fortune on a 1DX and 400 DO II, but you might not do any better than Art, Grant and the rest of us and you will miss opportunities waiting for them.

It's not a question of whether it's "good enough" - people are getting results with it - but just trying to work out my options. What yields more detail, specifically at higher ISO - 600mm on 5D3 or 400 on 5DSR cropped? The review touched on this slightly, but I'd be curious in a situation that you have a high-res sensor at a wider focal length vs. a lower-res sensor at a longer length so the image is framed identically, is there a difference quality-wise? Particularly since they are both FF sensors.

In my experience:
600mm + 5DS R>600mm +5DIII>400mm + 5DS R>400mm +5DIII

Thanks. That, coupled by another informal test I ran a couple days ago in store with a (regular) 5DS, seals it for me. 5D3 and 600 it is!

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for saying "thanks"! 600 on the 5DIII is very good. I happen to prefer 600 on the 5DS R but I am sure you will be satisfied with it on the 5DIII - I had some great shots with that combo.

 

[bholliman]

My wildlife and bird photography experience is somewhat limited, but as the former owner of a 5D3 and current owner of a 5DsR, I prefer the 5DsR for wildlife and almost everything else. I owned both 5D's for several months and at times had a 300 f/2.8 with 2x extender mounted on one and my 70-200 on the other to catch close in birds. I have found the AF of the 5DsR to be slightly better and my keeper rate was higher, despite the smaller, less forgiving, pixels. When down sampled, higher ISO shots look just as good to me as 5D3 files. I ended up selling the 5D3 as I found I was never using it.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Yup...now to figure out the best way to actually GET to 600!

 

[nc0b]

As to noise with the 5DsR, the sun was setting and there was cloud cover. I had to really push everything for the following killdeer shot. 560mm, 1/125, f/8, ISO 3200, (100-400mm II @400mm with 1.4X TC III) The original is a JPG, contrast and brightness adjusted moderately. All 5DsR settings default, apurture priority. I usually shoot at ISO 400, and occasionally 800, so is the first time I have observed this much noise at "actual pixels". The full frame file size was 17 mb, the crop before adjustments was 1.4 mb. I would have liked to have stopped down one stop due to the TC, but there just wasn't enough light. Initially I tried a few shots of the killdeer without the TC, but I needed more reach. I could only get within about 20 feet of the bird before it would move further away.

 

[AlanF]

As to noise with the 5DsR, the sun was setting and there was cloud cover. I had to really push everything for the following killdeer shot. 560mm, 1/125, f/8, ISO 3200, (100-400mm II @400mm with 1.4X TC III) The original is a JPG, contrast and brightness adjusted moderately. All 5DsR settings default, apurture priority. I usually shoot at ISO 400, and occasionally 800, so is the first time I have observed this much noise at "actual pixels". The full frame file size was 17 mb, the crop before adjustments was 1.4 mb. I would have liked to have stopped down one stop due to the TC, but there just wasn't enough light. Initially I tried a few shots of the killdeer without the TC, but I needed more reach. I could only get within about 20 feet of the bird before it would move further away.

You have to use RAW and a program such as DxO with PRIME noise reduction if you you are under difficult conditions as jpegs are pretty hopeless if you have to crop (in any case I never use jpegs for bird photography). Further, I would never use the 1.4xTC under such conditions as any extra reach is more than negated by loss of IQ and additional noise. The 1.4xTC should be reserved for when there is plenty of light, and I have given it up altogether on the 5DS R although it is OK on low mp FF such as the 5DIII. At iso 640 and using DxO the noise is basically negligible on the 5DS R. At 1600 IQ does deteriorate slightly and 3200 is for when you don't crop much.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Yup...now to figure out the best way to actually GET to 600!

Consider used lenses from someone reputable with a good return policy like b and h or adorama if you are in the states. You pay a bit of a used premium but returns are pretty easy if you are not happy with it. I started out with a used 300mm f2.8 IS and extenders until i could save a bit more and trade it up to the newer mark ii. The big whites hold their value pretty well. I still use a used 600mm as well...still saving for the mark ii upgrade. Recent 1dxii purchase has now set me back a bit on that.

As much as i use both lenses, the loss on trade up is considerably less that what i would have to pay to rent them. Depending on your GAS fund, sometimes you do what you have to do.

 

[stochasticmotions]

Picked up a canon refurb 5DS a couple days ago, here are a few shots from the first couple hours out with it. Using canon 100-400 LII for these shots, will try the teleconverter and the sigma 120-300 f2.8 as soon as I can get a day out that isn't 100 degrees in the shade.

So far pretty happy, very similar to the 5dIII but I'm still more used to the 1DIV so there will be a little muscle memory to re-teach. All shots below are crops of the originals and then resized for the net. I'm still using only jpegs since I am going to have to upgrade lightroom or find another raw tool (not a big fan of subscription software so I have been sticking with lightroom 5.7 as long as I can).

Red-tail crop by Barry Scully, on Flickr

The underside by Barry Scully, on Flickr

Bluebird crop by Barry Scully, on Flickr

 

[Click]

Very nice pictures, stochasticmotions.

 

[serendipidy]

Very nice pictures, stochasticmotions.

+1...I like the blue bird best