Monito wrote:
According to Monito, the differences are subtle but visible and I strongly recommend the 5DS for most users rather than the 5DS/R.
Is that your final answer? I am also on the fence between the 5DS or 5DsR. Well, The A7RII is in the mix too. (questions with that body is mainly low light AF with Canon lenses and RAW file compression)
As J_ph points out, you are more likely to see moiré than any difference in resolution, unless viewing at 100%. And how real is 100%? Unrealistic.
Frame the issue in an alarmist way as "blur" and it sounds horrific.
Frame it more realistically as "filtering" and you are closer to actuality.
Most (but not all) of the perceived resolution increase is due to artifacts. These are clearly visible in some of the rare side by side example. I say not all of the perceived resolution because Roger Cicala has found some increase in resolution in Imatests he has done, but I would be interested to know how much of that is fortuitous aliasing.
I can make any image have ultra-high resolution details if they don't have to be real.
In the end, few and probably none are going to be persuaded by whatever I write, but I wanted to express my alternate point of view so that Chambers' 'final answer' would not seem to be the only 'final answer'.
hatch1921 wrote:
@Molson.... WOW! Talk about a before and after! I dig it and it tells me I'm not pushing my images nearly enough in LR.
Nice work.
Hatch
Thanks!
I was pretty bummed out driving home from that shoot, thinking I hadn't captured anything worthwhile, but I was very pleasantly surprised when I started playing around with those files in LR the next morning.
I think it's just about time to dump the rest of my Sony stuff - before it depreciates to zero...
Sneakyracer wrote:
Is that your final answer? I am also on the fence
I recommend that anyone on the fence just get the 5Ds and not worry about the very tiny potential increase in resolution. Both cameras have outstanding potential for resolution and you'll almost certainly be equally happy with either.
Monito wrote:
As J_ph points out, you are more likely to see moiré than any difference in resolution, unless viewing at 100%. And how real is 100%? Unrealistic.
If you don't view at 100%, why worry about moire at all? If you're viewing at anything other than 100%, any moire you see is likely the result of your downsampling interpolation algorithm, and not your sensor.
I can't wait until Canon comes to their senses and does away with the anti-aliasing filter altogether, like Nikon did with the D810.
I looked at dpreview samples and can't see any difference in sharpness in s and r outputs. I can see 1 stop difference in noise between 5d iii and 5ds/r at pixel level. ISO 6400 on new camera is equal to ISO 12800 on 5d iii.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I recommend that anyone on the fence just get the 5Ds and not worry about the very tiny potential increase in resolution. Both cameras have outstanding potential for resolution and you'll almost certainly be equally happy with either.
Dan
This is very much what I just said in a different thread.
It's the law of diminishing returns, the printed output of the two cameras would (IMHO) be effectively identical, with any differences only showing up on a monitor yet there is always a desire to get the VERY BEST IQ you can, even if in reality you are potentially just running into problems with moire to get that extra 2%
If I was going to buy one of these I'd buy the 5DS, you can sharpen it up and noise is rarely an issue in prints anyway
saintiwari wrote:
I looked at dpreview samples and can't see any difference in sharpness in s and r outputs. I can see 1 stop difference in noise between 5d iii and 5ds/r at pixel level. ISO 6400 on new camera is equal to ISO 12800 on 5d iii.
molson wrote:
If you don't view at 100%, why worry about moire at all? If you're viewing at anything other than 100%, any moire you see is likely the result of your downsampling interpolation algorithm, and not your sensor.
Moiré is visible at much smaller enlargements and prints than 100%. It is not in any way limited to 100%.
Proper downsampling for viewing and printing does not create any moiré.
alundeb wrote:
Not if you don't look at the right places
True
The problem I have is that I'm not sure I could trust the 5DSR not to show moire in a situation where I am either short of time to process it out or in a situation where I just can't remove it and a job is spoiled. As we all know trust in our gear is essential.
For me it would make sense to take the safer option of the 5DS and lose a tiny amount of sharpness (but I'm not buying one anyway)
Yep! I bought a copy in near mint condition this year, along with the same vintage 35-105 f/3.5-4.5.
The 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 is a great little lens. It was originally the top pro lens for the then-new EF mount cameras, preceding the original 28-80 f/2.8-4.0L lens by two years for the first version, and one year on the version II. I have the version II. Mine was about $60, IIRC. Lots of fun, and very light weight. Decent optics and coatings. I got the lens hood too, and that helps the most to give good IQ.
Nice to see how it performs on the new 5DsR. Looking forward to more shots from you.
Monito wrote:
As J_ph points out, you are more likely to see moiré than any difference in resolution, unless viewing at 100%. And how real is 100%? Unrealistic.
Frame the issue in an alarmist way as "blur" and it sounds horrific.
Frame it more realistically as "filtering" and you are closer to actuality.
Most (but not all) of the perceived resolution increase is due to artifacts. These are clearly visible in some of the rare side by side example. I say not all of the perceived resolution because Roger Cicala has found some increase in resolution in Imatests he has done, but I would be interested to know how much of that is fortuitous aliasing.
....Show more →
I tend to agree with Monito on 5DS over 5DS R question. It took awhile to get my head around it - the artifacts,false color, and all.
In addition my thoughts consider the "art". A slightly softened, anti-aliased image, is relaxing to the eye.
Some may say - still start from ultra-sharp and soften. I think its far better to anti-alias the sub-pixel actual view rather then attempt to soften sampled full pixels. Keep in mind I am using some of the sharpest lenses; so that approach may have more merit than working from softer lenses.
Falk Lumo did an analysis of the D800 and D800E and found the 800 had a "75% AA filter strength". That's dorectly analogous - AA filter and AA cancelling filter comparison. The DPR comparisons of the woodcut images (top centre left in the studio shot) show the 5Ds is a tad softer and still has some residual moiré - but significantly less than the 5DsR. The deconvolution results seem to confirm his conclusion in the white paper, which I posted before without seeing your results Falk Lumo wrote:A Bayer-AA filter strength of ~75% is moderate. In an ideal situation (low ISO, sharp lens, no shake, good focus etc.) it leaves enough contrast at the Nyquist frequency to recover all detail a sensor with the same resolution but without a Bayer-AA filter could have captured. On the other hand, it cannot completely eliminate the risk of false color moiré, only reduce its likelihood and visibility. I don't see a lot of difference between the 5Ds and 5DsR after that sharpening - suggesting the "detail has been recovered". I also usually do a Topaz InFocus (which has some deconvolution component to it) anyway , and Rajan confirms the benefit here, so I dont think the 5Ds R is going to add too much more benefit and only really risks increased frequency of needing to get rid of moiré. I'm glad the Topaz plugin uses all cores in my Mac getting close to 1200% CPU usage - PS only uses 1/2 of them- otherwise the bigger files will have me batching overnight
My pendulum has definitely swung away from the R version
BTW, now DxO has a good testbed to show off the "perceptual MPs" available in Canon's lenses
dhphoto wrote:
This is very much what I just said in a different thread.
It's the law of diminishing returns, the printed output of the two cameras would (IMHO) be effectively identical, with any differences only showing up on a monitor yet there is always a desire to get the VERY BEST IQ you can, even if in reality you are potentially just running into problems with moire to get that extra 2%
If I was going to buy one of these I'd buy the 5DS, you can sharpen it up and noise is rarely an issue in prints anyway
I dig it and it tells me I'm not pushing my images nearly enough in LR.
