gdanmitchell Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
^^^
I don't encounter moire with the 5DsR, and I did a rather large project photographing musicians where fabric issues would have shown up. Not saying that isn't possible, and for those who are concerned, one take-away from my post is that you can get the 5Ds, get very similar final output results at the end of your workflow, and lower your concerns about moire. Though I've also gotten moire artifacts using cameras that do include AA filtering...
I tend to agree that that 5DsR is "better" than the 5Ds when it comes to resolution. But I also believe that the difference is so insignificant that it will likely never have a visible impact on even rather large prints. Basically, I'm saying that at the end of workflows tailored to files from the two cameras, any difference in sharpness of the output is so tiny as to be insignificant. Both cameras produce extremely high resolution output.
You could go two directions what that observation — assuming that you accept it:
1. Since the two cameras' final output is so similar — and assuming you don't worry about the moire issue – you might as well join the crowd and go with a camera that foregoes anti-aliasing. (Yes, I didn't say "has no anti-aliasing filter," for reasons you probably know about.) Current high resolution camera systems now almost universally are produced without AA filtering (Sony, Canon, Nikon, most or all miniMF and other digital MF systems), so it seems that the concerns are fading.
or...
2. Since the AA-filtering 5Ds produces image quality essentially indistinguishable from that of the 5DsR (unless you go full test bench to look for it!), any photographer uncomfortable with giving up AA-filtering should get it and not worry about output sharpness.
On all counts, that seems like good news, right? And it doesn't really disagree substantially with your conclusions. In fact, it might be that we vehemently agree for the most part! ;-)
Dan
Dan
|