The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Canon 5Ds/5DsR

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Really,

Doubling the MP's is not raising the bar. Phase One and HB are shaking in their boots!

I guess you need 100MP and DR of 20EV to make a statement
Phase One sales are up year-over-year since the financial crises. They increased when the 645D was released, increased when the D800 was released, and we've been selling IQ250s more quickly after the release of the 645Z than before. Anytime the market talks about image quality and gets people thinking about the benefits of resolution/dynamic-range/color/tonal-smoothness/lens-quality, Phase One benefits.

I'll be in SF next month if you'd like to get together and play with a Phase/Leaf system and drink some scotch. Schneider lenses that can hold their resolution wide open, big and bright viewfinders, sync speed of 1/1600th, access to tech cameras with native rise/fall/shift/tilt/swing on every lens, huge dynamic range, files that hold up to lots of abuse in post and still look organic, beautiful tonal transitions, and color only achievable by tightly integrating hardware and software. I think you'll see why, no, we are not shaking in our boots, but rather cheering Canon on. 2015 looks very bright for us.
 

tray271

New member
Disappointed..for landscape work dynamic range makes a big difference..I'll be waiting for the Sony a7r version 2. .
 

Sharokin

New member
Phase One sales are up year-over-year since the financial crises. They increased when the 645D was released, increased when the D800 was released, and we've been selling IQ250s more quickly after the release of the 645Z than before. Anytime the market talks about image quality and gets people thinking about the benefits of resolution/dynamic-range/color/tonal-smoothness/lens-quality, Phase One benefits.

I'll be in SF next month if you'd like to get together and play with a Phase/Leaf system and drink some scotch. Schneider lenses that can hold their resolution wide open, big and bright viewfinders, sync speed of 1/1600th, access to tech cameras with native rise/fall/shift/tilt/swing on every lens, huge dynamic range, files that hold up to lots of abuse in post and still look organic, beautiful tonal transitions, and color only achievable by tightly integrating hardware and software. I think you'll see why, no, we are not shaking in our boots, but rather cheering Canon on. 2015 looks very bright for us.

Hey Doug,

Will Capture One be available for the 5Ds when the camera is available in June?
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Hey Doug,

Will Capture One be available for the 5Ds when the camera is available in June?
Support for new cameras has, historically, been added to Capture One Pro 1-3 months after the camera ships. I have no reason to expect any different for this camera. That would point to a July-September timeframe.

Timeframe varies based on how different the sensor is from previous sensors, whether the manufacturer gets a camera to Phase earlier-than-launch (usually not), and what cycle C1 is in when they get the camera (i.e. if they get it a day after they've just released a new version then it might be longer than if they get it two weeks before the planned launch for a new version).

Sometimes raw support is provided before tethered support. This is especially true when a new tethering protocol is used. Given Canon's switch to USB3 with this model, and some of the ongoing issues with 35mm dSLR USB3 drivers and OSX and power (see also Nikon D800), I suspect this might be the case this time.

Of course, it's all just speculation at this point (predicated on past experience and knowledge of the process, but speculation none the less).
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The highest resolution sensor in an improved version of an immensely popular and proven camera body. Looks like a winner to me. Add to that the widest lens and the fact that other Canon lenses seem to be up to the task makes it a double win. If I were a Canon user, I would have been on the waiting list already.
 

Harry

Member
Phase One sales are up year-over-year since the financial crises. They increased when the 645D was released, increased when the D800 was released, and we've been selling IQ250s more quickly after the release of the 645Z than before. Anytime the market talks about image quality and gets people thinking about the benefits of resolution/dynamic-range/color/tonal-smoothness/lens-quality, Phase One benefits.

I'll be in SF next month if you'd like to get together and play with a Phase/Leaf system and drink some scotch. Schneider lenses that can hold their resolution wide open, big and bright viewfinders, sync speed of 1/1600th, access to tech cameras with native rise/fall/shift/tilt/swing on every lens, huge dynamic range, files that hold up to lots of abuse in post and still look organic, beautiful tonal transitions, and color only achievable by tightly integrating hardware and software. I think you'll see why, no, we are not shaking in our boots, but rather cheering Canon on. 2015 looks very bright for us.


I have owed a P21,P40+, Alpa tech cam and loved them.
Hard to beat the larger sensor and great lenses.
I am looking to get back into photography and buy a new system this spring. I still drool over P1 gear, but the camera body is 30 years behind the times. When a new DF++ body comes out I will look again

At least with the DF+ body you can fine tune the lenses which was lacking before.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
After reading and listening to the info available about the 5DS(R) I started to like this camera(s) very much. The 5D3 body design, a great high res sensor all in a reasonably priced package and an upcoming newer version of the 5D3 later this year for action shooting makes for a really great start. Plus the fact that there are already a number of L lenses which are up to the 50MP resolution - at least the latest designs.

Actually now that I am completely out of Nikon (since some 6 months) this new Canon ecosystem becomes very tempting for me. Interesting how times change .....
 
The fact that people here are even comparing this new release by Canon to MF systems that are so far apart when it comes to costs, size and ease of operations is a huge complement to where 35mm camera tech has gone. I am so eagerly looking forward to getting my hands on the 5DSr.
 

torger

Active member
I just can't stop talking about 5DS vs 5DS R :). I just hope Canon won't go the Nikon way and drop the AA filter in the next model, but for that to happen the taste among high res photographers needs to change.

When you evaluate which one to get I think one should ask the following questions
* Do you see a difference on a scaled down image, ie when not pixel peeping?
* Do you ever scale or transform your picture (for printing, for lens corrections, rotations, perspective corrections), and if so do you think an aliased picture responds better or worse to those operations?
* Resolution-wise you lose about 1-2% resolving power with the AA filter, do you think that 50 megapixels is so low pixel count that you need those 1-2% extra with the drawbacks of aliasing?

If you think there's a difference on a scaled down image and the 5DS R looks better, then it's clear cut. I don't think there will be a difference on scaled down (except for moire) and there is no scientific reason why there would be a difference, but well you never now.

If your conclusion is that it only comes down to pixel peeping, then it's time to start valuing how much that is worth. Worse scaling/transform properties, color aliasing, moire on one hand and 1-2% extra pixel peep resolution on the other, which most likely only exists there on your screen. When you publish there's either scaling down, or scaling up and when you scale up aliasing is not your friend.
 

gazwas

Active member
I hold my hands up and freely admit I understand very little about the tech behind all this but seeing as the 5DsR has an AA filter that is cancelled is it possible to have, for example 50% cancelling or is it a case of all or nothing? Can the R version potentially be a mid way between with and without AA filter that we won't know until it gets into users hands?

In my product photography I've seen plenty of shots blown up large on exhibition stands and I know some of the photographers use 39Mpix (some less) backs and they have jaggies galore on the printed images. From a distance these are not noticable but what is apparent is they seems to have lots of detail (micro contrast?) and be it real or false it gives the shots that MFD look. With this in mind, is the 5DsR not a better match for this look, ailaising warts and all with the 5Ds just looking like another 35mm pretender?
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I am pretty sure from what I read so far, that the 5DSR AA filter canceling works similar to what Nikon used in their D800E. Which I shot for over 3 years and never had any issues with moire etc. Also sharpness and resolution was just right and how to be expected - even when pixel peeping.

The real concern is: how good are the lenses you use - with Nikon a lot of the lenses were not up to even 36MP. So I really hope it is true what Canon said, that most of their L glass (at least their latest) are up to 50MP resolution.
 

turtle

New member
I agree torger. I was thinking that the regular 5Ds looks a more sensible bet for most people. The other issue is the apertures you use. A lens will have to be used at its best apertures to see any real difference in the R model. These are small pixels, so presumably diffraction will be even more noticeable and so the aperture will need to be even more optimal than with the D800 to benefit from the R. Is my logic sound here - can someone more technically minded help? But anyway, reason may not come into it. I suspect people will flock to the R as Canon has pitched it as offering 'more resolution' Did you hear me? I said more!
 

turtle

New member
We can make some estimates ourselves and the bottom line is this: if it shows any deficiencies whatsoever on the 5D III in terms of resolution, it will fall apart in those areas on the 5Ds. I do however think that Canon is far better positioned than Nikon was 3 years ago re lenses, but there still are not that many wides and superwides that will convince at the edge and in the corners.

I am pretty sure from what I read so far, that the 5DSR AA filter canceling works similar to what Nikon used in their D800E. Which I shot for over 3 years and never had any issues with moire etc. Also sharpness and resolution was just right and how to be expected - even when pixel peeping.

The real concern is: how good are the lenses you use - with Nikon a lot of the lenses were not up to even 36MP. So I really hope it is true what Canon said, that most of their L glass (at least their latest) are up to 50MP resolution.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
We can make some estimates ourselves and the bottom line is this: if it shows any deficiencies whatsoever on the 5D III it will fall apart in those areas on the 5Ds. I do however think that Canon is far better positioned than Nikon was 3 years ago re lenses....
Lets hope ;)
 

torger

Active member
I hold my hands up and freely admit I understand very little about the tech behind all this but seeing as the 5DsR has an AA filter that is cancelled is it possible to have, for example 50% cancelling or is it a case of all or nothing? Can the R version potentially be a mid way between with and without AA filter that we won't know until it gets into users hands?

In my product photography I've seen plenty of shots blown up large on exhibition stands and I know some of the photographers use 39Mpix (some less) backs and they have jaggies galore on the printed images. From a distance these are not noticable but what is apparent is they seems to have lots of detail (micro contrast?) and be it real or false it gives the shots that MFD look. With this in mind, is the 5DsR not a better match for this look, ailaising warts and all with the 5Ds just looking like another 35mm pretender?
I guess it would be possible to make a 50% cancelling, but I don't think that's how they've done it, you wouldn't get that cutting feeling when peeping if they leave some AA-effect in.

It's important to note that a camera AA filter is quite weak too, it *is* possible to get moire with AA filtered cameras too, it's just a whole lot harder. So the manufacturer chooses some threshold where you get away with almost all moire and aliasing in almost all situations, but not not more than that so you keep almost all real resolution.

Then we get the interesting question - if the AA filter does not solve the problem 100%, how much worse is it then to be without AA filter? I cannot answer that question really so I'd like to test. How sharp lenses are and how effective the microlenses on the sensor are will have an effect. If there was such a thing as an aliasing-problem-scale I'd think that being with AA filter would be 95% problem free, and without would be 30%, ie there is quite a large difference, but say it would be 70 vs 60 percent than one maybe think the R would be worth it...

I do know that the microlens-less MFD sensors like 39 megapixels P45+ and indeed my H4D-50 combined with razor-sharp tech lenses will have more aliasing issues than the 5DsR, but without testing I don't know how large the difference is. Would I buy "in the blind" I'd surely go for the 5Ds though, for the principles behind it. 1-2% extra resolution is not worth the possible extra issues.

The other point is interesting, if those aliasing artifacts in fact is an important component of the elusive "MFD look". I don't know. I haven't really seen the "MFD look" and not really seen anything special about it. The older CCDs have both this pixel peep microcontrast thing but also quite high noise level so you get a certain "grain" or texture, while a clean CMOS with AA filter might look more "artificial" despite it's more exact in its capture. Possibly this is a "MFD look" thing, but again it's pixel peeping. Now when MFD has the superclean CMOS that aspect is going away.

I'm pretty allergic to pixelated prints, but that too is a matter of taste. I haven't yet had much experience of really large prints, but heard others experiment with adding some light high resolution noise on top of the upscaled image to get a pleasing texture up close on the finished print, and that's probably something I would look into too, but to make the upscale work well to start with the original picture must be suitably soft on the pixel level otherwise pixelation is very hard to get rid of. I don't like the look of fractal upscalers, creating more resolution than was captured is simply not a good idea. I've looked at a lot of upscaling algorithms and the basic "bicubic smoother" always gives the best looking result.

As noone really knows what the MFD look is it is tempting to mimic them as much as possible, and sure the 5DsR is more like them. But pixelpeeping an image to find the MFD look I think is cheating :)

The reason why MFD lacks AA filters is not fully clear to me, but if I may guess the reason is that the CCDs used, which are used for many other applications, did not come with AA filters in the standard product range so they would have to be developed specifically for photography probably at a steep cost, and then it was better to make it a feature. More resolution is easy to understand and see, while the advantages of a slightly softer image takes a bit longer time to explain... I think it became more obvious to me now when I've started with printmaking, you're always resampling the image to match the print size, that pixel peep sharpness becomes less useful and that aliasing becomes more of a pain.
 

torger

Active member
Yes I think too that Canon is better prepared concerning lens resolving power than Nikon was. The Digital Picture has some excellent peeping tests of a lots of lenses and Canon wins again and again over the Nikon lens range when compared side by side. Canons lenses are more expensive too though.

I'm quite sure they won't reach all the way to medium format sharpness though, ie Hassy H and DF+ with a 50c or IQ250 will make sharper 50 megapixels. One have to be a bit practical too, the closest to "no compromise" lenses is probably the Zeiss Otus range, and they're not exactly lightweight or cheap. My feeling is that Canon has struck a pretty good balance between resolving power and being practical.
 

gazwas

Active member
Hypothetically, if a 5DsR has a defraction limit of for example f8, is it better to shoot at f11 to slightly blur aliasing when required as with your MFD printing workflow but when this is not an issue benefit from the sharper AA free sensor?

Sorry if my posts are driving you round in circles as my thinking is if I miss this Canon and wait for the Sony 50Mpix which will be AA free, the worry of false colour and aliasing actually put the Canon in better favour even with 2 stops less DR???
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Hypothetically, if a 5DsR has a defraction limit of for example f8, is it better to shoot at f11 to slightly blur aliasing when required as with your MFD printing workflow but when this is not an issue benefit from the sharper AA free sensor?

Sorry if my posts are driving you round in circles as my thinking is if I miss this Canon and wait for the Sony 50Mpix which will be AA free, the worry of false colour and aliasing actually put the Canon in better favour even with 2 stops less DR???
Despite the maybe possible advantages of a Sony 50MP version camera, the most important thing is the quality lens lineup. And there Canon wins hands down WRT IQ and number of high quality L glass in every focal length and for all special purposes.

So my choice would be clear .... Canon! Even if DR is maybe not as good as an upcoming 50MP Sony sensor :cool:
 

torger

Active member
Hypothetically, if a 5DsR has a defraction limit of for example f8, is it better to shoot at f11 to slightly blur aliasing when required as with your MFD printing workflow but when this is not an issue benefit from the sharper AA free sensor?

Sorry if my posts are driving you round in circles as my thinking is if I miss this Canon and wait for the Sony 50Mpix which will be AA free, the worry of false colour and aliasing actually put the Canon in better favour even with 2 stops less DR???
Yes, diffraction blur help, but not as much as an AA filter, that is AA filter can kill aliasing with less blur than diffraction needs.

f/8 on a 36x24mm sensor corresponds to about f/11 at with my H4D-50 49x37. I've attached a pixel peep crop of an f/11 shot using a SK47XL, that is similar to how f/8 on a sharp lens would look on the 5DsR. The sharpness is of course mouthwatering, but thinking one step further, if I ever want to upsize this good luck with hiding those jagged lines. And if I downsize I won't have any use of that extra microcontrast.

Those magenta-toned pixels here and there was of course not there in real world, that's false colors. This is using Phocus which when I've tested a few raw converter is among the best at hiding false color aliasing. The image is also a bit desaturated so it's not a worst case in any way. False colors are most often seen as pink/magenta and green/cyan in edge zones of small details.

Of course it would have been great now if I had the same shot at f/16... unfortunately where I sit now I don't have any such example, but yes at f/16 the image has less aliasing. In fact I've now started to shoot at f/16 as base aperture unless I need a quicker shutter speed. I am quite positive that f/11 with AA filter would have lead to less aliasing and sharper image than f/16 without AA.

I'm sure some looking at those crops would think that I'm overly picky on those false colors, but then my question back is aren't you overly picky on pixel peep sharpness, skipping the AA filter is like wanting 55 instead of 50 megapixels. It's a philosophical question what real image quality is.

The question "would you rather have a 50 mpx AA-filtered camera with 12 stops, or a 50 mpx AA-less camera with 14 stops?" is kind of cruel :). I know that for my shooting style and my dreams of printing really big the 12 stop with AA would do the most for image quality... but pushing shadows crazy amounts and watching how increadible clean they is just as poisonous attractive like pixelpeep crops that cut you.

I really like using my Linhof Techno so I have no such choice to make though, but if I would choose between getting a 5Ds or a Sony A7rII with adapters, I would get the 5Ds, but other things like I prefer the body and user interface of the Canon would also be part of the decision. I surely would hold forward the merits of AA filter though when my poor Canon would get DR-bashed by some Nikon or Sony guy ;)

I hear some photographers claim that with Canon they would need to HDR-blend 90% of their shots, and with a 14 stop Nikon or Sony that dropped to 10%, and sure if I had that shooting style and post-processing style which would benefit so much in workflow from those 2 extra stops, then I would probably go that way. But I'm used to working with 12 stop and don't tonemap that much and then 12 stops is plenty, especially if that banding goes away...
 

ShooterSteve

New member
Doug,

FYI - I've had zero issues with my D800E, USB3, macbook pro with Yosemite after the latest updates. It's been great. Thank you Capture One.

Support for new cameras has, historically, been added to Capture One Pro 1-3 months after the camera ships. I have no reason to expect any different for this camera. That would point to a July-September timeframe.

Timeframe varies based on how different the sensor is from previous sensors, whether the manufacturer gets a camera to Phase earlier-than-launch (usually not), and what cycle C1 is in when they get the camera (i.e. if they get it a day after they've just released a new version then it might be longer than if they get it two weeks before the planned launch for a new version).

Sometimes raw support is provided before tethered support. This is especially true when a new tethering protocol is used. Given Canon's switch to USB3 with this model, and some of the ongoing issues with 35mm dSLR USB3 drivers and OSX and power (see also Nikon D800), I suspect this might be the case this time.

Of course, it's all just speculation at this point (predicated on past experience and knowledge of the process, but speculation none the less).
 
Top