Why 5D IV over 5DsR? Not for image quality

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd pick the tool that matches the job. Claiming one or the other is better, is only pertinent for a particular job / application.

A 5DS series would not be my choice for theater photography where it often takes ISO 25600 to get the shot. For landscapes at ISO 1600 or lower, the 5Ds series would be my choice.

 

[saveyourmoment]

Just another example

low light test shoot iso 800 pushed 3 Stops and 50% NR (5dsR scaled down to size of 5DIV... still i would prefer the 5dsr...

100% crop

When i look at this image from the 5div i would like to see a 5div without AAFilter... But that would make the 5dsr nearly obsolet...

 

[[email protected]]

To answer the original poster, the reason I got the 5d4 was largely due to low light performance and action.

Admittedly, the 5d4 isn't as fast as it could be on the frames per second front, but it is still 40 percent faster than the 4dsr.

On the low light front, I cannot directly compare cameras, not owning both, but I do know that taking high iso shots in good light that doesn't need high iso doesn't tell you a whole lot. The situation I find myself in frequently is fading light with a critter that moves fast. Putting your shutter speed up to 1/1000 does a number on your ISO (frequently at 6400-10000 this past weekend), and in actual low light, bigger pixels help a lot.

I figured that with the bigger pixels and the on-chip ADC, I'd have more luck pulling shadows from low light with the 5d4.

I'd very much like someone to show I'm wrong on that with some images.

 

[turtle]

The 5D IV has about 3/4 of a stop of extra DR at 400 and beyond. Its not game changing, but for wedding shooters and photojournalists its something that is certainly nice to have. It seems only the A7R II is better in this regard.

I think it shows that if you work within the parameters of the example in your real photography, the 5DSR is sharper and has less noise, yes. However, what it does not show is the other features that may be helpful to a 5D IV shooter (depending on application of course), such as frame rate etc. Moreover, in terms of image quality terms, the example shown does not highlight the improved Dynamic Range on the new sensor. The extra dynamic range is irrelevant to some users, but highly relevant to others. For the second group, their appreciation of a good deal more DR and less pattern noise when files are pushed hard is not indicative of poor technique.

Clearly these two cameras have their strengths and weaknesses, but it is erroneous to suggest that this comparison proves that the 5DSR has 'better image quality'. In some respects, yes, but in others, it is a clear 'no'.

Sounds like the OP is objectively confirming that provided your photography isn't suffering soley from a lack of creature comfort features or poor technique in practice; the 5DSR is the clear winner. Even though the 5D Mark IV is better in every other spec, the 5DSR still has the capability to produce a better end result image.

I've got to believe that matters to many.

DR is a wash after ISO 400 on nearly all cameras. 5DIV has no real practical DR advantages on the 5DSr on medium to high ISO ranges.

 

[applecider]

Hey save your money,

I get that you used available files on dpreview to do your comparison but I'm not sure that is the way to do a comparison. Since the 5DIV is said to sharpen better a more valid methodology would seem to be to compare the best post processed image from both a 5D4 and a 5Dsr but you'd need access to both cameras to do so. Or download the raw files and work them yourself.

 

[raptor3x]

So i just played around with some comparison with the help of the dpreview files to make a decision on buying the 5DIV... Just for image Quality, the 5D IV looses against the 5DsR. So it all comes down to the "gimmicks", video functions and type of your photography to decide, which camera to use...

The image above is the 5DsR, ISO 12800, applyed noise reduction 50%!!, resized to the image size of the 5D IV,
The image below is the 5DIV, ISO 12800, orig size, no retouching...

i would love to see a 5dsR II with touchscreen, CFast, USB-C, Wifi (just for "tethered liveview, not for sending images to the remote!)...

In the above image I would say the 5DIV is the clear winner for image quality. The 5DsR image has some of the noise smeared away but it also loses a ton of detail compared to the 5DIV. More interesting would be the 5DsR image without such over the top noise reduction.

 

[tron]

I agree on the rather odd choice for comparing the cameras (ISO 12800). However, I do agree with OP on the basic premise, that the 5D3/4 have lots of gimmicks that are not terribly useful compared to much larger files of the 5Ds/R. At roughly same price, the trade-off of feature strongly tilts to the 5Ds/R even as a generalist camera.

I have no interest in either 5D3 or 4, but a 5DsR II may be worth considering (GPS, easier interchangeable focusing screens).

and although a 5D series fan I would be tempted if they didn't increase the mpixels but instead improved noise, DR and started using CFAST cards to support higher fps Oh and f/8 autofocus (birds cannot wait) ;D

 

[Mikehit]

I agree on the rather odd choice for comparing the cameras (ISO 12800). However, I do agree with OP on the basic premise, that the 5D3/4 have lots of gimmicks that are not terribly useful compared to much larger files of the 5Ds/R. At roughly same price, the trade-off of feature strongly tilts to the 5Ds/R even as a generalist camera.

I have no interest in either 5D3 or 4, but a 5DsR II may be worth considering (GPS, easier interchangeable focusing screens).

and although a 5D series fan I would be tempted if they didn't increase the mpixels but instead improved noise, DR and started using CFAST cards to support higher fps Oh and f/8 autofocus (birds cannot wait) ;D

Haven't they done all of those (bar the CFast card thing)?

 

[StudentOfLight]

To my eyes, it looks like the 5DIV has either a different exposure or has been processed slightly differently. The blacks are not as deep and the contrast is less, thus there appears to be more noise in the 5DIV shadow areas. It's a small difference, but I suspect that if you processed both to the same final appearance, the noise in the 5DIV file would at least match that of the 5Ds.

Still, what this shows me is that it takes some real effort to make the images coming out of any modern camera look bad. I think most people would agree that if you already own a 5Ds or a 5DIII, the sensor is not the main reason to upgrade.

On the other hand, I have found with the 1D XII that the files coming off this latest generation of sensors do seem to have a lot more processing flexibility, most notably in shadow and highlight recovery. It's not major, but as DPReview and others have noted, it is noticeable and makes post-processing a little easier.

+1

If one camera has a black patch that is darker than another, the question should be which camera is more accurate. Fortunately the colorchecker patches are well known references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ColorChecker

When using Lightroom you can check (%R %G %B) value of any patch by hovering the eyedropper tool over said patch.

The the brightness levels of the neutral patches should be as follows:
95%; 80%; 65%; 50%, 35%; 20%

Adobe standard color profiles are definitely not a good basis for comparison.

 

[tron]

I agree on the rather odd choice for comparing the cameras (ISO 12800). However, I do agree with OP on the basic premise, that the 5D3/4 have lots of gimmicks that are not terribly useful compared to much larger files of the 5Ds/R. At roughly same price, the trade-off of feature strongly tilts to the 5Ds/R even as a generalist camera.

I have no interest in either 5D3 or 4, but a 5DsR II may be worth considering (GPS, easier interchangeable focusing screens).

and although a 5D series fan I would be tempted if they didn't increase the mpixels but instead improved noise, DR and started using CFAST cards to support higher fps Oh and f/8 autofocus (birds cannot wait) ;D

Haven't they done all of those (bar the CFast card thing)?

I was talking about a ~50Mpixel 5DsR II but I guess you refer to 5DIV ...

 

[Jopa]

As far as I know a lot of 5ds/r owners including myself decided to pass on the mk4. Nevertheless the mk4 a great camera, but it's not meant to replace the 5ds bodies. I never had a 5dmk3, and before I got the 1dx2 I was using my 5ds/r for everything. I never had a need to shoot over ISO 6400, and the only problem I had - the camera is not fast enough to capture a "peak moment". +2 fps of the 5dmk4 won't give you much benefits neither.

I completely understand the OP - people hesitate about the 5dsr top ISO 6400 (extended to 12800) and there is actually no point to compare the 5ds/r and mk4 @ ISO 100 - unless you need to push your image to 3 stops maybe... A 50Mpx sensor with no AA is hard to beat. The DR difference also pretty much disappears after ISO 400. Put any decent glass on the 5dsr and the results are mind blowing.

I personally would love to see an mk2 with improved low ISO DR and the expanded/improved AF system (similar to the 1dx2 / 5dmk4). If Canon puts it in a 1d-style body with other 1d-reserved features like the AF spot linked metering, AI Servo 3+, maybe +1 fps - it would be da bomb

 

[Jack Douglas]

Jopa, your last paragraph says it all! Trouble is Canon isn't listening. Now that I've bought the 1DX II I'd never be able to afford it anyway. :'(

Jack

 

[saveyourmoment]

As far as I know a lot of 5ds/r owners including myself decided to pass on the mk4. Nevertheless the mk4 a great camera, but it's not meant to replace the 5ds bodies. I never had a 5dmk3, and before I got the 1dx2 I was using my 5ds/r for everything. I never had a need to shoot over ISO 6400, and the only problem I had - the camera is not fast enough to capture a "peak moment". +2 fps of the 5dmk4 won't give you much benefits neither.

I completely understand the OP - people hesitate about the 5dsr top ISO 6400 (extended to 12800) and there is actually no point to compare the 5ds/r and mk4 @ ISO 100 - unless you need to push your image to 3 stops maybe... A 50Mpx sensor with no AA is hard to beat. The DR difference also pretty much disappears after ISO 400. Put any decent glass on the 5dsr and the results are mind blowing.

I personally would love to see an mk2 with improved low ISO DR and the expanded/improved AF system (similar to the 1dx2 / 5dmk4). If Canon puts it in a 1d-style body with other 1d-reserved features like the AF spot linked metering, AI Servo 3+, maybe +1 fps - it would be da bomb

I would love to see Canon give us a better choice. Right ow, we always have to make compromises or buy all 5DSR, 5DIV and a 1DX II. Canon, please give us a 1DX II styled DSLR with full touchscreen, USB-C, HDMI 2.0 (4k output), 50/75MP with 3-5 FPS and the option to use a Cropmode with 20-24MP and 11 FPS, dual C-Fast... I don't care if it would be 8000-9000 EUR. This camera would nail it....

 

[Jack Douglas]

I agree, but I suspect that the quantity that would sell wouldn't justify it. The key would seem to lie in the mode differential so that it could serve both the high and Low MP needs with distinction since fps and MP are always a trade off, and similar with respect to noise and ISO.

Surely, Canon knows this but can't presently deliver it.

Jack

 

[StudentOfLight]

As far as I know a lot of 5ds/r owners including myself decided to pass on the mk4. Nevertheless the mk4 a great camera, but it's not meant to replace the 5ds bodies. I never had a 5dmk3, and before I got the 1dx2 I was using my 5ds/r for everything. I never had a need to shoot over ISO 6400, and the only problem I had - the camera is not fast enough to capture a "peak moment". +2 fps of the 5dmk4 won't give you much benefits neither.

I completely understand the OP - people hesitate about the 5dsr top ISO 6400 (extended to 12800) and there is actually no point to compare the 5ds/r and mk4 @ ISO 100 - unless you need to push your image to 3 stops maybe... A 50Mpx sensor with no AA is hard to beat. The DR difference also pretty much disappears after ISO 400. Put any decent glass on the 5dsr and the results are mind blowing.

I personally would love to see an mk2 with improved low ISO DR and the expanded/improved AF system (similar to the 1dx2 / 5dmk4). If Canon puts it in a 1d-style body with other 1d-reserved features like the AF spot linked metering, AI Servo 3+, maybe +1 fps - it would be da bomb

I would love to see Canon give us a better choice. Right ow, we always have to make compromises or buy all 5DSR, 5DIV and a 1DX II. Canon, please give us a 1DX II styled DSLR with full touchscreen, USB-C, HDMI 2.0 (4k output), 50/75MP with 3-5 FPS and the option to use a Cropmode with 20-24MP and 11 FPS, dual C-Fast... I don't care if it would be 8000-9000 EUR. This camera would nail it....

It's not Canon that is failing "us", it is the whole camera industry. Name one camera that can do everything that the 5DSR, 5DIV and a 1DX II can do?

 

[tron]

As far as I know a lot of 5ds/r owners including myself decided to pass on the mk4. Nevertheless the mk4 a great camera, but it's not meant to replace the 5ds bodies. I never had a 5dmk3, and before I got the 1dx2 I was using my 5ds/r for everything. I never had a need to shoot over ISO 6400, and the only problem I had - the camera is not fast enough to capture a "peak moment". +2 fps of the 5dmk4 won't give you much benefits neither.

I completely understand the OP - people hesitate about the 5dsr top ISO 6400 (extended to 12800) and there is actually no point to compare the 5ds/r and mk4 @ ISO 100 - unless you need to push your image to 3 stops maybe... A 50Mpx sensor with no AA is hard to beat. The DR difference also pretty much disappears after ISO 400. Put any decent glass on the 5dsr and the results are mind blowing.

I personally would love to see an mk2 with improved low ISO DR and the expanded/improved AF system (similar to the 1dx2 / 5dmk4). If Canon puts it in a 1d-style body with other 1d-reserved features like the AF spot linked metering, AI Servo 3+, maybe +1 fps - it would be da bomb

I would love to see Canon give us a better choice. Right ow, we always have to make compromises or buy all 5DSR, 5DIV and a 1DX II. Canon, please give us a 1DX II styled DSLR with full touchscreen, USB-C, HDMI 2.0 (4k output), 50/75MP with 3-5 FPS and the option to use a Cropmode with 20-24MP and 11 FPS, dual C-Fast... I don't care if it would be 8000-9000 EUR. This camera would nail it....

Or they could give us a 5D4 styled 1DxII. Not all want a 1.5Kg big camera...

 

[Jopa]

Jopa, your last paragraph says it all! Trouble is Canon isn't listening. Now that I've bought the 1DX II I'd never be able to afford it anyway. :'(

Jack

eBay is always at your service Jack The 1dx2 is a great camera nevertheless and I guess it will retain its value for a while.

 

[AlanF]

Currently, the 5D IV discussion is spread over three threads and is becoming repetitious in parallel.

For my purposes, my own type of bird photography, my 5DS R gives me higher resolution and longer effective reach. It's strength is its high mpix sensor without an AA-filter. But, for some of my close up shots, you get Moire from the regular barbs on the feathers, rare but annoying. Its AF is pretty good, better than the 7D II or 5D III.

My 5D IV, with its AA-filter, gets around the Moire problems, but even more importantly has fantastic AF, which is really helping me with birds in flight. I actually prefer the noise patterns of the 5DS R.

The two bodies are almost identical in terms of controls and it is so easy to switch between the two. (It helps having my wife using one while I use the other as we usually go out bird watching together, so having 2 bodies not a luxury.)

 

[j-nord]

Currently, the 5D IV discussion is spread over three threads and is becoming repetitious in parallel.

For my purposes, my own type of bird photography, my 5DS R gives me higher resolution and longer effective reach. It's strength is its high mpix sensor without an AA-filter. But, for some of my close up shots, you get Moire from the regular barbs on the feathers, rare but annoying. Its AF is pretty good, better than the 7D II or 5D III.

My 5D IV, with its AA-filter, gets around the Moire problems, but even more importantly has fantastic AF, which is really helping me with birds in flight. I actually prefer the noise patterns of the 5DS R.

The two bodies are almost identical in terms of controls and it is so easy to switch between the two. (It helps having my wife using one while I use the other as we usually go out bird watching together, so having 2 bodies not a luxury.)

Thanks for the pro/con as they relate to birding. If you had to pick one, specifically for birding, which would you choose?

 

[Larsskv]

Currently, the 5D IV discussion is spread over three threads and is becoming repetitious in parallel.

For my purposes, my own type of bird photography, my 5DS R gives me higher resolution and longer effective reach. It's strength is its high mpix sensor without an AA-filter. But, for some of my close up shots, you get Moire from the regular barbs on the feathers, rare but annoying. Its AF is pretty good, better than the 7D II or 5D III.

My 5D IV, with its AA-filter, gets around the Moire problems, but even more importantly has fantastic AF, which is really helping me with birds in flight. I actually prefer the noise patterns of the 5DS R.

The two bodies are almost identical in terms of controls and it is so easy to switch between the two. (It helps having my wife using one while I use the other as we usually go out bird watching together, so having 2 bodies not a luxury.)

I would appreciate it if you could further describe your experience with the differences in AF performance, between the 5Dsr and 5DIV. Thank you!