privatebydesign said:
Well, not often that you and I agree, but: +10,000,000,000.
Couldn't have said it better.
Upvote
0
What current Canon EF lens will work well with the new 5DS/5DSR?
- Thread starter pulseimages
- Start date
Well, not often that you and I agree, but: +10,000,000,000.
Couldn't have said it better.
privatebydesign said:
Again, fully agree. Simple matter of physics, Finn. Output resolution is a convolution of all input factors. It's approximated very closely by the RMS formula PBD supplied. As any component of the system improves in resolving power, the output resolution will increase. We aren't even close to the point of diminishing returns with either lenses or sensors, so the gains with a 5Ds should be more than sufficient for any one of the OP's lenses.
Upvote
0
Even though I do not like DXO's magic number to be used across brands, you can look at a old and not spectacular lens like their 50mm f/1.8D and view the sharpness, distortion, CA's, etc on various Nikon Cameras. I picked it simply because it was old, and not nearly as sharp as the equivalent "G" model.
GO to The DXO site http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings
1. Go to the 50mm f/1.8D and start with a D3, then D4, then D800, then D810. As you get to the newer and higher MP cameras, the sharpness figure increases dramatically from 10 MPX to 23 MPX, while all the other measurements for the lens remain the same.
2. Then look at one of the very best lenses, - The Carl Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4. With the D3, it gets a 12MPX Resolution, with a D4, a 15MPX, and a D810, a 33 MPX.
Clearly, you get a lot more resolution for your money by moving from a D3 to a D810 using a lens that cost $134 new, then by keeping your D3 and adding a $4500 lens. That $4500 gets you a 20% gain in resolution while a move to the D810 gets a 230% increase in resolution for less money, and ALL of your lenses will see similar improvements.
So, if Resolution is your goal, spending $3700 on a body will give far better bang for your buck than spending it on just one or two lenses.
If you have the funds, then replacing all your lenses is certainly the way to go, but the gain per $1000 spent is not a lot.
The old Adage carried over from the film days just does not work, investing in expensive lenses but keeping a old body doesn't work(It did work with film cameras).
GO to The DXO site http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings
1. Go to the 50mm f/1.8D and start with a D3, then D4, then D800, then D810. As you get to the newer and higher MP cameras, the sharpness figure increases dramatically from 10 MPX to 23 MPX, while all the other measurements for the lens remain the same.
2. Then look at one of the very best lenses, - The Carl Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4. With the D3, it gets a 12MPX Resolution, with a D4, a 15MPX, and a D810, a 33 MPX.
Clearly, you get a lot more resolution for your money by moving from a D3 to a D810 using a lens that cost $134 new, then by keeping your D3 and adding a $4500 lens. That $4500 gets you a 20% gain in resolution while a move to the D810 gets a 230% increase in resolution for less money, and ALL of your lenses will see similar improvements.
So, if Resolution is your goal, spending $3700 on a body will give far better bang for your buck than spending it on just one or two lenses.
If you have the funds, then replacing all your lenses is certainly the way to go, but the gain per $1000 spent is not a lot.
The old Adage carried over from the film days just does not work, investing in expensive lenses but keeping a old body doesn't work(It did work with film cameras).
Upvote
0
Spokane,
Agree on all counts. My only concern is what purpose he intends to task a 5Ds with. As we've all noted, it's a highly specialized camera. And while spending the money to buy the new body with greatly boost the yield of his existing glass, the presumable loss suffered at high ISOs may mitigate greatly whatever gains he gets at the low end. So if he wants a general purpose camera (as I suspect most folks do) then spending $3700 on this machine would be ill-advised regardless if he had nothing but a bag of Outses.
Agree on all counts. My only concern is what purpose he intends to task a 5Ds with. As we've all noted, it's a highly specialized camera. And while spending the money to buy the new body with greatly boost the yield of his existing glass, the presumable loss suffered at high ISOs may mitigate greatly whatever gains he gets at the low end. So if he wants a general purpose camera (as I suspect most folks do) then spending $3700 on this machine would be ill-advised regardless if he had nothing but a bag of Outses.
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
I agree on this, and have made similar comments in other posts. For a studio camera, and for a landscape camera at low ISO's it should be very good.
For high ISO, that remains to be seen what the practical limit is. For my D800, it was about 800, and I expect something similar. With my 5D MK III, I use 12800 quite a lot.
Upvote
0
LonelyBoy said:
I despair sometimes. Read the thread including the OP's original question for context then get back to me.
As to your point, presumably the body would be partly funded by the sale of a 5D MkIII, so only the difference between those would be needed. But if you give the context of that comment of mine, it was in response to a comment that suggested it makes sense to spend over $9,000 in lenses, any way you cut it, even selling off the lenses you have, that is strange advice.
Context my friend, keep the context.
Upvote
0
AshtonNekolah
Time doesn't wait, Shoot Like It's Your Last.
TexPhoto said:
its funny you stated this, I remember when I shot with my 40D on a tour one lens one body, I was shooting on end and even never for once even know that DXO even existed and the notion of the mp sizes on crop vs ff, I just shoot and I was happy as heck, sharpness was beautiful, everything sweet, even when i got my ff body it was still sweet. only recently when I came across some topics with the mp and censor with lens you get different mp sizes.
Do you think I really care about all of that chatter? At first I thought about it, to be honest, I felt a little sad to see how I was robbed with all the BS, but I think for myself and looked at the hard images that I took with my cameras and ask do these images look like S___ to you? Hell no, a frame is a frame if the sensor is 20 then it's 20 period, if people want to get all technical and geeky over some glass and a computer body, then that's ok. But it will not be a part of my appetite to get carried away with this gimmick.
Life is to short for all that, guess what people, all the images that you took on those older lenses, you should go back and retake all the images you ever took before. I bet that sounds very foolish and ignorant, well this is the same thing I see when all these new stuff being talked about today over newer lenses. L lens 1999-2015 is all make with quality and I dont see any reason to get all worked up over it.
Look at, if you got a huge pockets, upgrade everything dont be cheep in doing so, I know if i was that obsessed over the latest and greatest I would but I am more happier with what I got that brings me closer everyday to preserving time. If i feel the need to change or get something else it will not be because of the latest and greatest, it would be out of need.
I always say there is no such thing as the best lens.
And allot of people are very much falling for it.
You guys got it right indeed, respect to that!!
Upvote
0
pulseimages said:
I am late to the thread, and didn't go through the four pages of post but let me give you the answer to your question and the answer you should have asked for.
You will see an increase in resolution with your lenses. However:
Glass first.
You will see a greater improvement by applying the $3,600 to a new 70-200MM II, 24-70MM II If you can sell the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200mm and have enough cash with the $3600 you were debating on spending on the camera, buy the 16-35mm f/4.
Then think about the new body later.
Just my opinion.
Upvote
0
takesome1 said:
Maybe you should have read a bit of the thread before making your pronouncement. In the mean time there is a Mt Spokane comment six above yours that rather contradicts your opinion, he has facts and figures to back it up too.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I will stick with the pronouncement after reading the entire thread.
Having owned the same lenses (less the 17-40mm) the OP mentions and updating to the current version, knowing what each will do I stick with my suggestion of upgrading the glass first. Even if he can't afford the 5Ds with this path, do the glass first. My answer has nothing to do with the need of upgrading lenses for the 5Ds, it is the path I would take regardless.
In other threads your posts came across that you didn't see the usefulness (for your self anyway) of the high mp 5Ds. Maybe I miss read or miss understood them. What is your suggestion to the OP for this thread?
Upvote
0
To All:
Again all this debate is purely academic. We have asked, but the OP has yet to reply to any request to get more information about what his specific needs are. Debating glass for a 5DS is a wasted effort for him if he really needs a camera for general purpose shooting. His glass may be spot on for what he needs as well as his camera because we no clue what he is planning to do with them. I dont think we even know what body he is shooting with do we?
Again all this debate is purely academic. We have asked, but the OP has yet to reply to any request to get more information about what his specific needs are. Debating glass for a 5DS is a wasted effort for him if he really needs a camera for general purpose shooting. His glass may be spot on for what he needs as well as his camera because we no clue what he is planning to do with them. I dont think we even know what body he is shooting with do we?
Upvote
0
Based on sample tests, like those of TheDigitalPicture, where you see the little sharpness using a 60D camera which has pixel density similar to the new Canon 5DS.sanj said:
The sharpness in the corners of an image to be much worse than seen in samples 60D, since the lens edges provide image lower than the center.
Upvote
0
LonelyBoy said:
I agree, so why quote me completely out of context? Your comment was directed at mine, meanwhile you completely ignored Mt Spokane's comment that illustrated, quite succinctly, that your opinion is incorrect.
As for the 'friend', sorry, I forgot the italics tags, I will remember to not be so nice in future.
Upvote
0
takesome1 said:
Then your advice, when addressing the specific question the OP asked, flies in the face of empirical testing results done when Nikon upped their sensors from 12-36MP, and the physics.
In these threads I take several tacks, I try to answer the question being the first, and in doing so I often rail against the perceived wisdom, which I think is why I come across as so aggressive, I rarely comment on threads where the answer has been given but more often where I believe answers are mistaken or wrong, I hate bad advice.
As a second tack I try to actually think about what the OP is trying to achieve, they might ask the question 'What is better the 16-35 f2.8 or the 16-35 f4 IS?' I'll then look at what they shoot and try to tell them what I think is best for them and there shooting, in doing so one doesn't necessarily answer the OP's original question, it goes to the heart of the question not the letter and suggest what is probably best for them. To do this a little background is needed, what they shoot, maybe a link to some images, bodies they use and lenses they currently have etc. If an OP doesn't give that kind of background you can't take that tack.
A third route I go is to say what I did and why, and point out the positives and negatives of going that route. This normally requires a bit of engagement with the poster, and again, if there is little or no background it is a difficult tack to take effectively.
In this thread I took the first route. I railed against the ridiculous notion of this or that lens being good enough, without knowing what the OP needs it is impossible to answer! But by looking at simple results from comparable Nikon sensor density tests gives us a very good indicator of what to expect. The physics, though greatly simplified, agrees.
So you then ask what would I advise specifically for the OP in this thread. My answer is that anybody that needs advice on buying a 50MP 135 format body doesn't need one, simple as that. If you need it and are capable of getting good results from it over a 24MP model then you already know that and you already know your output requirements.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I thought we were talking Canon lenses and Canon bodies.
My advice may fly in the face of many things, but it was offered based on personal experience. Tempered with the understanding that we do not have a 5Ds in hand yet to compare.
privatebydesign said:
I wouldn't go so far as saying that everyone asking for advice on the 5Ds doesn't need one. They might know they have the need and still want to hear advice and opinions.
I do not think that was the case here.
My first thought about the OP and the nature of the question is that he did not know if he "needs" a 50mp body.
We know he the OP offered little information, so I offered generic advice and the upgrade path I would follow.
Which included not initially buying the 50mp body.
Upvote
0
LonelyBoy said:
How many of the $4500 Carl Zeiss Otus lenses can you buy for $3700? A whole bunch of upgrades from a $1000 lens will cost a lot.
Upvote
0
takesome1 said:privatebydesign said:
I thought we were talking Canon lenses and Canon bodies.
My advice may fly in the face of many things, but it was offered based on personal experience. Tempered with the understanding that we do not have a 5Ds in hand yet to compare.
privatebydesign said:
I wouldn't go so far as saying that everyone asking for advice on the 5Ds doesn't need one. They might know they have the need and still want to hear advice and opinions.
I do not think that was the case here.
My first thought about the OP and the nature of the question is that he did not know if he "needs" a 50mp body.
We know he the OP offered little information, so I offered generic advice and the upgrade path I would follow.
Which included not initially buying the 50mp body.
That is because you were taking tack two and I was taking tack one. We are actually in agreement on tack two, though as the OP offered so little background and the variants are many I didn't bother going in to each permutation, and so I confined my initial posts to the notion of lenses not being good enough; you just seem reluctant to accept the physics of tack one.
The Nikon reference is only because the empirical results support the underlying physics. There is a 1/3 increase in linear resolution between the 5D MkIII and the 5DS, to get that at a stroke is remarkable, to try to get that by upgrading all your lenses is far less practical and much more expensive. On another note, that means that we can make some fairly appropriate predictions on the absolute maximum increase in resolution possible from the new sensors, and it will be a lot less than 1/3 increase over a 5D MkIII.
I will be very interested, from a something to argue about point of view, not an 'I must buy this or that lens' point of view, at the DxO lens test results from the 5DSr and how lenses like the 24TS-E MkII and 5DSr compare in resolution to the D810 and PC-E24.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
